LaminatedDenim OP t1_j4asrwm wrote
Reply to comment by Manadrache in Germany plans to destroy this village for a coal mine. Thousands are gathering to stop it by LaminatedDenim
The village is empty because RWE bought them out to be able to mine coal. The activists are protesting against the extraction and burning of coal, as well as the fact that whole villages are able to be bought out for such a purpose. I'm glad the former inhabitants got paid to relocate, but that doesn't make the entire problem go away
Of course nobody wants trespassers on their property, that's the whole point about protesting. It's non-violent civil disobedience to protest against something that's destroying the earth
[deleted] t1_j4cirjm wrote
[deleted]
Maelas84 t1_j4bl4b4 wrote
Then don't take the money! Why are they protesting now? They didn't their money already lost likely. Don't take their money and then you can protest...
I don't understand this..
Kyrvin t1_j4bqtr9 wrote
I don't know what it's called in Germany, but in the US, it's called Eminent Domain. The government can force you to sell your property for fair market price as long as it's for the "public good".
Cam515278 t1_j4c7f9b wrote
We have the same. But especially in coal mining cases, the actual inhabitants are usually very happy with the deal and not the people who are protesting
Manadrache t1_j4ay7s9 wrote
>Of course nobody wants trespassers on their property, that's the whole point about protesting. It's non-violent civil disobedience to protest against something that's destroying the earth
I am tired of this argument actually. That's the same those people say what protestors say that are glueing themselves on streets.
There are way less dangerous ways to do so.
It's raining in this area for days now and the earth is pretty wet, still they are hiding in tunnels or/and getting themselves and police in danger.
LaminatedDenim OP t1_j4ayddt wrote
What would be a better way to protest, in your eyes? One that puts less people in danger, yet still draws enough attention that it actually has a chance to change things?
balding-cheeto t1_j4az36v wrote
There isn't a better way, people like the one you're replying to want protesters to sit down, shut up, and never be heard from again.
Manadrache t1_j4aznmi wrote
That's bullshit. Just do not put other people in danger.
Manadrache t1_j4azirp wrote
Do you believe these things will change anything? You believe the greed of companies will be gone?
If I glue myself on a road and someone else dies like the biker in an accident a few weeks ago because the ambulance and special trucks don't have a chance to get there, is just shitty.
If I put myself in danger and force police and healthcare workers to help me like some do now in Lützerath is is shitty. At least the healthcare workers have already enough shit to do.
Why not protest at the power plant? At the front door of those politicians that are part of the decision?
BloodIsTaken t1_j4b83k4 wrote
People blocked the town because that’s the only way to stop its demolition. Protesting in front of a power plant doesn’t do anything.
Since you brought up the “climate gluers”: When they glue themselves to the street drivers should form an emergency corridor as they are in a traffic jam. Since that doesn’t happen it’s bot the gluer‘s fault if an ambulance can’t get through - and I‘m not making that up, a court judged this way. The protesters block cars, which are a cause of CO2 emissions, and as such their actions are completely validated as their goal is to reduce these emissions.
Regarding „climate gluers“ and protest at a power plant: These people already did exactly that. They blocked airports, closed pipelines and protested in front of power plants and government buildings - with no media coverage at all. But when they throw food on a painting (which is protected by glass and not actually damaged) suddenly people are outraged.
Fact is, protesting doesn’t work - you don’t get enough attention when demonstrating “the right way“ and when you do something that gets people’s attention you are told to demonstrate somewhere where you don’t bother them.
LowDownSkankyDude t1_j4dedb6 wrote
The disruption is the point. It's fine that you don't want to put yourself at risk for an objectively good cause. It's not like civil disobedience is compulsory. However, imo, we're lucky have people willing to risk it all to make the world better for everyone. I'm not physically able to, anymore, and it warms my heart to know there are people who are able to, go all the way. Personally, I think this should viewed as an inspiration, rather than a nuisance.
Manadrache t1_j4dl5rn wrote
Guess it's just different on how people look at things. I don't see here a reason to put yourself at risk. I would fight for other things, yeah. But not this one.
Putting your own life in risk, sure. You are free to do so, but certain risks will get other people in danger that didn't ask for getting into this kind of trouble. It's just selfish. How on earth can that be okay?
Greta starting her friday for future day off from school was an inspiration. She never put someone else in risk. Putting others at risk while believing you are doing something good is just a lame excuse. Others did that in the past.
LowDownSkankyDude t1_j4do5yw wrote
I understand what you're saying, and fully respect your position, I simply disagree.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments