By Mitchell McCluskey, CNN (CNN) — Spanish environmental activists spray-painted a superyacht moored in Ibiza on Sunday. Activists from the environmental group Futuro Vegetal posted a video showing them standing in front of the superyacht named Kaos, holding a banner that says: “You Consume Others Suffer.” The activists then sprayed the vessel with red and
I disagree and I am going to give you an honest and not emotionally charged reply. Protesting by vandalizing yachts disincentivizes them from spending their money increasing the hoarding. They will just spend it on other ways to show their wealth instead of supporting a somewhat working-class industry. Worse yet, they will just not spend it making the situation worse. Also, it is a super obvious way to get caught and arrested and good luck proving you didn’t do it. Who else was on the docks that night? In short, you made the situation worse and got arrested worsening your position and ability to impact change.
This is increasingly becoming more popular lately without actually impacting change. It is turning the average voter against these activists and their causes though.
Docks aren’t well guarded in my experience and I want to see your evidence that this is impacting voting in any way.
I won’t encourage anyone to do things like this but I am far from condemning it. Those mega yachts are disgusting, taking up dock space for useful ships and more polluting than a small town. All for what? So billionaires can have a dick waving contest against other ones? Meanwhile regular folks get priced out because heaven fucking forbid you want to go fishing with your buddies once a year.
I do believe that we saw the impacts of property violence in the BLM protests during the 2020 primary elections which is why a less radical candidate was elected. Polls showed this as well.
What stats other than the election results? Opinions at the time we’re largely around the coronavirus and wanting to get back to some form of stability.
That’s definitely not more ethical and that suggestion is abhorrent by any ethical framework. Murder is wrong except in self defense. If you start justifying murder based on political actions, you enable it in response and that typically leads to actual fascism.
When somebody has a knife at your throat? What about people planning to put a knife to your throat? What about people creating plans to dump toxic waste into your neighborhood?
At some point a line must be drawn. So why shouldn’t that line include the rich who dump astronomical loads of emissions, poisoning our air and water, and otherwise killing the planet?
There isn’t calls to eat the rich simply because of a difference in political opinion. There is a lot more to it than that.
You unfortunately justify violence against yourself in that case because you escalated. All of the examples you mentioned are hypotheticals and not real or part of this context. Additionally, if it is publicly known, it is also within the rules of society and I’m very against punishment without a trial by peers. You are no better than the rural folks around Salem distrusting the rich witches in the town who controlled their distribution, unironically.
In addition to the above, there is also the fact that roughly 8 million people a year are dying from climate change. Climate change that is heavily driven by billionaires. What about the self defense of those 8 million that die every year?
Additionally, if it is publicly known, it is also within the rules of society
This statement has some very “Let them eat cake” energy.
You are no better than the rural folks around Salem distrusting the rich witches in the town who controlled their distribution, unironically.
I haven’t murdered anyone. Nor have I based any of my argument on something false. So this is not true.
I disagree and I am going to give you an honest and not emotionally charged reply. Protesting by vandalizing yachts disincentivizes them from spending their money increasing the hoarding. They will just spend it on other ways to show their wealth instead of supporting a somewhat working-class industry. Worse yet, they will just not spend it making the situation worse. Also, it is a super obvious way to get caught and arrested and good luck proving you didn’t do it. Who else was on the docks that night? In short, you made the situation worse and got arrested worsening your position and ability to impact change.
This is increasingly becoming more popular lately without actually impacting change. It is turning the average voter against these activists and their causes though.
Docks aren’t well guarded in my experience and I want to see your evidence that this is impacting voting in any way.
I won’t encourage anyone to do things like this but I am far from condemning it. Those mega yachts are disgusting, taking up dock space for useful ships and more polluting than a small town. All for what? So billionaires can have a dick waving contest against other ones? Meanwhile regular folks get priced out because heaven fucking forbid you want to go fishing with your buddies once a year.
I do believe that we saw the impacts of property violence in the BLM protests during the 2020 primary elections which is why a less radical candidate was elected. Polls showed this as well.
Those are unconnected and the fact that you “believe” something doesn’t make it true.
I do believe that President Biden received the nomination but I don’t have proof at the moment. I also know he was the less radical candidate.
Show a connection
You mean, other than the actual results and the candidates platforms? I suppose we could look back at the narratives at the time.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/02/06/the-democratic-primaries-will-be-a-contest-between-radicals-and-repairers
I want stats.
What stats other than the election results? Opinions at the time we’re largely around the coronavirus and wanting to get back to some form of stability.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/upshot/biden-trump-poll.html
True.
If you’re going to risk being jailed, might as well go out killing a CEO.
That’s definitely not more ethical and that suggestion is abhorrent by any ethical framework. Murder is wrong except in self defense. If you start justifying murder based on political actions, you enable it in response and that typically leads to actual fascism.
What counts as self defense then?
When somebody has a knife at your throat? What about people planning to put a knife to your throat? What about people creating plans to dump toxic waste into your neighborhood?
At some point a line must be drawn. So why shouldn’t that line include the rich who dump astronomical loads of emissions, poisoning our air and water, and otherwise killing the planet?
There isn’t calls to eat the rich simply because of a difference in political opinion. There is a lot more to it than that.
You unfortunately justify violence against yourself in that case because you escalated. All of the examples you mentioned are hypotheticals and not real or part of this context. Additionally, if it is publicly known, it is also within the rules of society and I’m very against punishment without a trial by peers. You are no better than the rural folks around Salem distrusting the rich witches in the town who controlled their distribution, unironically.
The first 3 are, the last one is not.
https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/carbon-billionaires-the-investment-emissions-of-the-worlds-richest-people-621446/
In addition to the above, there is also the fact that roughly 8 million people a year are dying from climate change. Climate change that is heavily driven by billionaires. What about the self defense of those 8 million that die every year?
This statement has some very “Let them eat cake” energy.
I haven’t murdered anyone. Nor have I based any of my argument on something false. So this is not true.