The point of civil disobedience is to demonstrate the injustice of a law by visibly inviting its enforcement. Just doing random unrelated crimes to nebulously ‘raise awareness’ is not that.
Yep. If a toddler starts drawing on the wall, the typical reaction is not "this young person is very wise, we should pay closer attention to their views" but rather "how annoying, let's take away the Sharpie"
Beg to differ; there can be other reasons. The point, for example, of the cornstarch paint on Stonehenge was to show that people are more outraged by a very temporary vandalism with no long term effects but don’t have as much outrage about climate disasters that will destroy it.
That's a message that's unpersuasive because it's manifestly untrue. People do not actually care more about Stonehenge, or even these dumb antics writ large, than about climate change. By orders of magnitude. These stunts prove no such thing. It's not an issue languishing in obscurity and apathy.
You should consider that counting tweets, particularly under whatever subjective and apparently rather inaccurate definition of 'outraged' you're using, is a poor indicator of both what people individually care about the most and public opinion as a whole.
Again, you misunderstand the purpose of the demonstration. (Also you're kind of proving my point; you seem to be very upset, or at least perturbed and annoyed...)
Yeah no that’s just dumb trolling, trying to manipulate people into a whatabout gotcha:
Do deliberately annoying thing -> people are annoyed -> “Oh you’re annoyed?? Well what about this other totally different thing? I don’t see you being upset about THAT right now! Do u hate waffles?? GOTCHA!!”
It’s not because the point is that Stonehenge would be damaged by climate change. But for some reason, people seem more mad about cornstarch that washes off in the rain than about catastrophic climate crisis that will permanent ruin Stonehenge and end humanity.
But ok
Nah, there’ve been zillions of these types of stunts on all kinds of issues and they all play out the same way: people briefly laugh at or are annoyed by the stunt, the people doing the stunt bask in 15 minutes of fame, and none of it has any effect on the supposed issues.
It’s dumb and pointless.
Now I'm trying to picture what environmental civil disobedience actions would look like for something as nebulous as CO2 emissions. It's not like logging or whaling protestors, who can protect tangible things and force the authorities to be actively complicit in the harvesting
Could simply be it's not a cause well-suited for being advanced through civil disobedience at all. That can be the case with plenty of things, I suspect this is one. Though if you wanted to target, I suppose, fossil fuel infrastructure and that sort of thing, it would at least make a lot more sense.
