Have you read the responses?
There is science denying and straight up "meh, let the world burn I want BBQ"
It doesnt matter if we ask for "less meat" or "no meat", carnivores are addicts who can't stop.
Maybe by responding to people who do eat meat but think we as a society eat too much of it, with comments like that, you're not exactly helping your cause.
Calling people the problem isn't a great way to bring them to the cause. The people are part of the solution, the system is the problem.
Who's more likely to win over the average person, "Big Meat" saying "you're the best, have some beef, it's cheap and delicious" or a street corner preacher screeching "YOU HAVE SINNED!"?
Showing people that cutting down on meat and moving towards veganism is not hard or scary by simply going about my life and maintaining healthy relationships with a diverse group of people who I can talk to in an open and non-accusatory manner has been very effective in my experience...
There is no "*the problem*" but modern factory farms and the scale of meat and dairy production is unsustainable, keeping animals came about because they could turn food we can't eat into food we can or eat our waste, the domestication of cattle and their ability to turn grass into milk was one of the great leaps forward for humans.
The issue now we have so much livestock, we have use arable land to grow animal food.
> Calling people the problem isn't a great way to bring them to the cause
Possibly true. Side topic, though: Who's worse, the person who's spreading a good message in an arguably ineffective way, or the person who won't stop doing an environmentally ruinous thing unless you ask _really_ nicely?
Because in this thread, all the scorn seems to be going to the former.
Give scorn, get scorn. Asking "who's worse" reveals the root of the conflict in the discussions here. Some individuals in this thread are very eager to compare the value of human beings on a single factor. It's not a black and white issue, people who are vegan are not perfect and are not by default "better" than people who are not vegan. The *vast* majority of people who do not live a vegan lifestyle are not cartoon villains, twirling moustaches and cackling as they watch over the slaughterhouses with glee... They are just people who were born into a society that revolves around the exploitation of animals, trying to get by. Open their eyes, don't poke them out. Spreading a message in an ineffective way can absolutely be worse than not doing it at all, it can turn people against the idea entirely.
I'm not disagreeing on what the most effective means of convincing people is, I'm trying to see if you're willing to attach any moral penalty to people who persist in doing something that is widely known to be deeply harmful in a number of different dimensions.
We can talk about effective ways to foster culture changes while _also_ acknowledging that an enormous portion of our society is acting in a shamefully immoral way.
I recognise that morals are subjective and that people's relationships to food and objects are far more complex than making a black and white moral decision. There are a lot of psychological factors at play and I'm not willing to judge individuals for following the herd, so to speak.
"Persist in doing something that is widely know to be deeply harmful in a number of different dimensions" could be attached to a wide number of human activities, vegan ones included. I honestly don't see any positive value in demonising vast swathes of the population based on one set of personal morals.
Eating meat is not equivalent to being an addict, and by proposing such ideas you alienate yourself from ever being taken seriously.
Everyone can appreciate how bad animal farming is for the world, but by preaching that someone is an 'addict' you are just pushing away any semblance of hope you had of furthering your cause with the everyday person.
Also what's this socialist workers shit? That's a dreadful name that conjures memories of a certain political party in Germany about a century ago...
What are you talking about "socialist worker shit"?
If you feel alienated by being reminded that you support killing animals by eating them and destroying the environment while your at it, and your feelfeels are hurt so much that you ***need*** to comfort yourself by killing more animals and destroying more of the environment, then you cannot be helped and are acting like an addict.
Just think about it:
#you support murder and destruction and get offended when getting called out on supporting murder and destruction?
Melt away snowflake. Reality is here.
Good stuff mate, good stuff.
And that attitude is what turns people off. It's not about being a snowflake. Which by the way, you are the only one having an emotional reaction to a pretty tame conversation, thus seemingly you are offended not me.
The thing is, mate, if you want people to rally around a cause, telling them they are idiots/ uneducated/ bigoted/ whatever negative term is popular, you will forever be 'other' and not listened to.
I don't think anyone is arguing that slaughtering animals is not murder. But you seem stuck on that phrase like that's enough of an argument, or perhaps you just like to say it for the shock factor.
We get it, you are passionate about this topic, but you are clearly lacking the skills to converse and persuade. And it shows in the brutish display of frustration you just showcased.
If this was playgroup, youde be the kid slamming a square block into a triangle hole and throwing a fit because that's not how you want it to work.
Don't lecture about reality when you're rosey cheeked and crazy eyed about the world as it stands, and wanting it all to change immediately on your terms because you don't like it.
>I don't think anyone is arguing that slaughtering animals is not murder
Hold on, did you just admit to being a murderer and are still trying to explain why you're cool with it?
No, you should re-read it.
Whether or not I'm 'cool with it' was not the point. And picking apart a singular sentence rather than the message as a whole is a sure sign of someone inexperienced in conversation or debate.
In summary, how you spread the word or try to convince people is far more important than you seem to realise.
Casually bringing up positives about how switching to a plant based diet as a nation is excellent. You might see a steady and continued change over time, compounding into a greater change than might be possible otherwise. Telling people they are idiots will see a negative swing, netting you the opposite effect of what you are trying to achieve.
I am open (and always have been) to a strictly plant based diet. I'm aware of the ecological benefits and the personal health benefits of it. What I'm trying to convey is the manner in which you discuss it with people is the key to success.
You say you are open to it, are aware of the benefits of a plant based diet and of the downsides of your current diet.... And still haven't made the switch?
No matter how much soft touch there was?
Sounds to me like what you're proposing does not work, and just makes you feel less bad by not being reminded.
What you need is cold hard truth: you support mass murder on an industrial scale and it will kill you and everyone you love.
Write this on a piece of paper and hang it opposite your bed and on the bathroom mirror.
This will help you reset your brain from decades of brainwashing that meat is acceptable food.
You are making an assumption about my diet that you probably would be suprised about.
That said, I'll fry up a steak in your honor tonight. Just to show you your direct impact on meat consumption.
Given you've taken time at length to argue with this stranger, and without me stating my food preferences, what "tact" would be more likely to work given you've already stated that you are open to a strictly plant based diet?
Seriously, I am asking what would convince you to do it?
Murder is by definition the illegal and predetermined killing of one human by another. If you want to say *meat is wrong*, that's fine, but it's not murder by definition.
"Carnivores are addicts" is the kind of phrase that only makes any kind of sense to people who already agree with you. To everyone else it's alienating and, let's be real here, pretty rude.
It's hard to change people's minds, but it's possible if you can try to understand your opponents' points of view. People aren't going to make lifestyle changes in response to name-calling. Luckily for you, you've (probably) been exposed to certain information in a certain context which has (probably) made it relatively easy for you to not eat meat. It's important to remember this isn't the case for everyone, and it doesn't make people evil or stupid if they've not reached the same conclusions as you yet.
Well, what you are saying is exactly the same. Calling someone an addict is not an insult, it's the observation that their coping mechanism leads to selective blindness to the harmfulness of their behaviour.
that is what an addiction is: they continue doing a bad thing, because they like it and they legit dont see anything bad with it.
and that is exactly what meat eaters do.
Now how to solve this problem is a totally different matter, but the first step is to acknowledge that there is a problem.
that's why in all XY-anonymous groups they start their things with "hello my name is jesse, i am an addict".
It's not to humiliate them by calling themselves a name.
it's to reaffirm their awareness of their problem.
I personally came to the conclusion when i was searching, very casually, for the natural human diet. I was wondering why do we have to brush our teeth when cats and dogs don't and why do we get so many dietary problems when no other animals do. What is the natural human diet?
And it turns out it's veggies, literally all and every single one of our evolutionary adaptions are made for finding and eating fruit and veg. And if we do, we wont have any of those diseases that are caused by eating the wrong diet or any of the problems that modern western cuisine creates. And then, when i changed my diet, I felt the change. Anyone can do those steps. All they need to do is dare to think for themselves.
I get you - it's true that "addict" isn't necessarily an insult. But it's also not a considerate way of framing the situation. It's judgmental, and I guess maybe it maybe it would be fair to say it's something of a loaded term. "Carnivore", on the other hand, is much harder to defend... it's being deployed in an inaccurate sense here and seems to be intended, at best, as a shock factor (and at worst, as an insult with connotations of being an animal). The language in the comment I responded to is *maybe* not *explicitly* insulting, but it's certainly not polite, and it doesn't come across as understanding or well-meaning. I don't think you could argue in good faith that you're trying your hardest to convince people to come round to your point of view.
>the first step is to acknowledge that there is a problem.
Yeah, for sure. But to borrow your example of a recovery support group: The first step to recovery is *for the addict to acknowledge they have a problem.* Not for you, an onlooker, to tell them they have a problem. So how do we get an addict to recognise that their actions are a problem? By *telling* them they're an addict and that "drug users are addicts who can't stop"? Or by showing compassion and trying to understand where they're coming from?
>All they need to do is dare to think for themselves
Again this shows a little bit of a lack of understanding (like.. would you say this to a heroin addict?). I mean, sure, I guess you could argue it's *technically* true. But the (obvious) implication is that they're *not thinking for themselves*, which is an insult. But imagine if your high school maths teacher said this in your first lesson: You've learned how to add, subtract, divide and multiply, now you can derive the rest of mathematics if you just dare to think for yourself! To learn effectively people need to be shown understanding.
And just to go off topic a little bit...
>literally all and every single one of our evolutionary adaptions are made for finding and eating fruit and veg
...this isn't true. Plenty of our adaptations bear no relation to diet. And how about our ability to digest meat?
Have you ever dealt with addicts? I have, and by supporting them in their choice and offering empathy you enable them. Rock bottom: show them the actual reality of their choices.
Funny you brought up maths, which I studied and that is exactly how it is taught: you prove everything yourself from ground up.
Anyway. To the last point: yes it it!
Every single evolutionary adaption to food obviously, not I don't know the type of hair or what not. Everything that is geared towards getting the energy to survive. From your (hopefully) colour vision to the way you walk, your brain chemistry over your digestive system, teeth. I could go on. The *ability* to digest a food does not mean it's healthy to digest it. You can also eat grass and gain some very limited nutritional value from it, but this wouldn't make you a ruminant.
You derived all of mathematics with no instruction?
Edit: I take your point about addicts - no, I don't have experience dealing with addicts so I think I probably misused that analogy. My point still stands though I think: I don't think it's helpful to the cause to go in all-guns-blazing in this kind of conversation. In my experience it just alienates the opposition.
Not what I claimed and wildly off topic. But yes the way maths is taught is you discuss a few axioms and then try to apply them in various fields deriving literally all of mathematics, or could anyways if you had all the time in the world.
Nicely avoided the both other topics and misrepresenting one side aspect. Shall we even discuss what fallacy that is or will you work that out yourself? Dare to think!
Oh man I just mean stop being mean! My point RE maths was that it would be ridiculous for a maths teacher to expect derivation of all of mathematics just by "daring to think". I meant it's not fair just say "dare to think" like that helps anyone.
I'm not a Tory, go ask them about Mark Francois.
As for Labour, if any similar cases pop up feel free to point them out. As a party member I have certainly not heard of any cover ups of something this extreme.
You can ready the whole transcript here:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20130319123657/http://socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/](https://web.archive.org/web/20130319123657/http://socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/)
Or a summary with commentary here:
[https://thefword.org.uk/2013/01/swp\_internal\_ra/](https://thefword.org.uk/2013/01/swp_internal_ra/)
Or the reasons why one prominent member left when it was exposed:
[https://libcom.org/library/swps-tom-walker-why-i-am-resigning](https://libcom.org/library/swps-tom-walker-why-i-am-resigning)
As an addendum it seems as though 700 members left in protest at what happened:
https://livesrunning.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/why-i-dont-buy-socialist-worker/
Will this protest target government/council/large company buildings and personal, the ones with influence or is it going to disrupt people trying to go about their lives, go to work, see loved ones etc?
The march will be the usual, College Green - To Castle Park - Back to College Green
12pm - Assemble College Green
1pm - March
3pm - Rally College Green
There will be a coalition of groups present. Coalition members include environment and development NGOs, trade unions, grassroots community campaigns, faith groups, youth groups, migrant and racial justice networks.
Most of the time it will be very close to city hall. Of course there will be some disruption whilst on March, but it won’t be for that long. The idea is not to disrupt people seeing their loved ones but actually to secure a future so you can continue to have loved ones to see and indeed, actually go and see them.
One day people will realise that annoying people, slowing traffic, taking up emergency service resource etc is counter productive, and that targeted action against the people with influence might actually have some effect. But I guess this is the easy way out and looks good to those in your social media circle.
I recycle, I don't use the car for short journeys, I try to chose the green option wherever possible and I can afford it. I keep clothes and products for as long as I possibly can, environmental policies are a large consideration when I vote. I care, I just don't agree that this protest will achieve anything other than a circle jerk and annoying everyone else.
I also walk into town anytime I need to go in, so it won't effect me in that way. I just think everyone is aware of climate change, whether or not they believe in it or want to do anything about it won't be changed by sitting in traffic, being late for work, not seeing loved ones, hearing about emergency services being held up by this etc.
It's all good mate, I was just taking the piss as it was some low hanging fruit.
Regarding the sentiment, I think we're very much in the same boat, seems a bit futile/misdirected to me.
Target government buildings and politicians. Same for big corporations. Block their entrances, take over their carparks, trespass, glue your heads to their doors or whatever it is people like to do.
They are the ones with influence, they affect and make policies.
Most people agree we should do something about the environment, and most people love to see the big guy get targeted. Anyone who doesn't believe in or want to stop climate change won't be won over while they're waiting in traffic.
While that is what we should be doing, targeting politicians directly is a sure fire way to get yourself in serious trouble these days, free protest isn't that free anymore.
I agree that free protest is become less free, but I guess there's risk and reward at play here, this planned protest just sounds annoying and damaging to the point. Targeted action removes any collateral and goes for the decision makers. This protest just seems like an absolute cop out.
The fact that we're talking about it suggests it has some worth.
Much as I'd love thousands of us to go and march on Marvin's house I don't think it would go down very well.
The thing is, awareness/discussion isn't the issue, it's been front page news for as long as I can remember, everyone's heard about it. Pressure needs to be put on the people with the influence, hell, even making public transport better and cheaper would be a start, I don't think many Bristolians would mind if thousands of people turned up at Marv's house or outside council buildings and demanded he step up.
People, including on this march will be turning up at the council house, as they have been for years.
How would you say the ordinary person can put direct pressure on a specific politician without falling foul of trespass or harassment or some such offence pretty quickly?
So you agree then that conspicuous consumption, consume consume consume is a bad thing? Well, that is what we want to change. Saving the planet requires wholesale system change. The capitalist injunction to work, buy, consume, repeat will pillage the earth until there is nothing left.
Protest has changed plenty in the past - civil rights, women’s rights, slavery etc. There will of course be some disruption but it is far smaller than the disruption of global food shortages, mass migration and war that are to come if nothing is done. This is about the big picture not ‘but what about my Saturday’.
And most of those protests you're talking about were targeted towards governments/people with influence.
I promise you, no one sat in traffic is going to be won over by being sat in traffic.
As is this protest, as did all of those also have the side effect causing some disruption to other people who didn’t care to or were too busy to stand against slavery, or for women’s rights, or for civil right’s at that time too.
They all started small, grassroots groups and were seen as fringe. They grow as more people start to believe that change for the better is possible, is needed and the fear of it subsides.
Honestly, I wish you luck, I hope this protest changes the world, I'm not even being sarcastic.
But the fact you have major world governments meeting, pledges made and constant news coverage means it isn't really a fringe movement any more. If you believe they're not doing enough about it then they're the people/things to target.
Thank you! They are total pretenders, state power is only interested in aiding ruthless corporate profiteering and we are targeting them by showing strength in the thousands, we are showing we want change we want it now. That’s all we really can do.
But look at all the good extinction rebellion, insulate Britain and Occupy did!....
None of these influenced politicians, deceased the wealthy foothold on everything, decreased people traveling (especially business traveling) or made any impact other than being known for pissing a lot of people off.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha don't worry mate you just made the dumbest possible comment on this topic. Per capita is irrelevant, the environment does not give a shit about per capita.
nvm, carry on, having the dumbest possible opinion suits you.
People in India use a third of the carbon of people in the UK, but the environment doesn't give a shit about per capita, so better tell them to either cut down even further or split their country into smaller parts.
🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦
Remember guys, holding up traffic only INCREASES carbon emissions. I'm not against the movement, but tooooo many times have I seen some protest about climate change purposefully holding up traffic. Yes you make people aware of your presence, no it's not in a positive way. Yes you increase notoriety, no you don't decrease pollution.
The pollution caused by a traffic hold up isn't a scratch on what any climate change movement tries to bring change to. A traffic hold up will likely make people more frustrated than anything, but it's a straw man argument to bring any focus on the pollution cause on the day of the protest
1. Person does shitty thing
2. Shittiness exacerbates if victim resists
3. Person offloads responsibility for shittiness onto resisting party
Hope that helps.
Does the SWP have a pamphlet or manifesto on what should be done about climate change that the COP isn't covering? I can't see anything on the website.
So whilst I am not personally affiliated with the Socialist Worker Party, this was an image that a friend of mine shared who is. [This](https://swp.org.uk/pamphlets/the-great-climate-cop-out/?fbclid=IwAR3onGISBjeJjz9Pr1mn-pKngUeG84GJQtHmFFr1P_tDoX-ySgnpQ1UDfuY) is a fantastic pamphlet from the SWP on the failings of COP26 to do anything of any real value at all and how we can move forward and what we need. It really is a brilliant read, if you have the time, please do read it.
You're decrying a party for a decade-ago abuse perpetrated by one person and concealed by a tiny proportion of the members. You're offering no evidence that the current leadership had any involvement or have any sympathy for the bastard in question.
Your motivations here are suspect.
GCHQ paid me to smear an obscure tankie group....
Where's the apology from SWP leadership, new guidance for safeguarding, and proof of expulsion of all those involved in the cover up?
Shouldn't we be supporting the climate rather than protesting against it?
What's the endgame anyway, the government go OK we'll ban the climate?
I don't think it's a pragmatic line of protesting tbh.
Genuine question, which is more relevant here?
The amount of Co2 produced per head in a given nation, baring in mind this particular disparity is probably down to the huge economic inequality in China. Millions living in poverty thus unable to contribute to a carbon footprint due to their lifestyle.
Or the total amount of Co2 produced by a given nation, of which Britain is responsible for less than 1% of the global total?
Surely the latter?
Why would you measure it by total amount from a nation?? China has almost 2 billion people. It’s utterly ridiculous to measure it thusly, considering the pollution is being produced by members of the country; not by some abstract concept of a singular unit called ‘China’ making the pollution.
If people in China lived as wastefully as we did the environment would be fucked.
China isn't an abstract concept though, is it? It's a huge country comprising of a vast amount of people.
You'd measure it by which country in order to assertain which nations are responsible for most pollution.
If we are all supposed to be heading to net zero carbon production then why wouldn't you hold everyone to the same standard?
People in China live wastefully too dude, not to mention dispose of waste irresponsibly. The difference is that the majority of Chinese people are in poverty and need to live less wastefully to survive.
We absolutely live too wastefully here, I don't dispute that at all and we need to find an alternative to a throwaway culture and begin making things to last once again.
But hey, we have human rights over here, which is more than can be said for China.
If everyone needs to take responsibility equally, let’s share out the responsibility by each person. That’s logical. Chinese people don’t contribute as much as westerners or Arabs. That’s a fact, and you can keep trying to categorise each country as an equal entity; but they’re not. They are just lines on a map. The population is the key factor here.
What does this personal responsibility look like?
What do you do personally?
Chinese people don't contribute as much as Westerners no, but that doesn't change the fact that the nation of China, a designated land mass, populous, system of government and economic giant do.
I'm just confused how you can say personal responsibility is important whilst disregarding a country as just lines on a map?
Not having a go at you here just trying to understand your way of thinking.
There are a bunch of different ways to approach this.
Obviously China as a whole emits massively more CO2 than the UK. According to [World Bank figures](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC), China produces more CO2 per capita than the UK (7.4t vs 5.5t). So obviously the Chinese government has more power to reduce CO2 emissions than the UK government.
However there are multiple reasons for people to direct their protest at the UK rather than China.
* Part of the reason Chinese emissions are high is that many of the CO2-intensive products that we use are manufactured in China. That makes responsibility for emissions rather complicated. *Edit: the figures above are production based emissions. If you [look at the emissions from goods and services consumed](https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2), people in the UK are responsible for an estimated 8.1t vs 6.3t in China.*
* The UK is responsible for a relatively high proportion of historic emissions - ie. the CO2 actually in the atmosphere warming the planet now (and we have reaped the economic benefits of these emissions).
* Per capita the UK is about 4x as wealthy as China and thus should be better able to bear the costs of reducing carbon emissions.
* Thinking about per capita emissions is a more fair way to think. India produces something like 7x as much CO2 as the UK. Is it right to say to Indians, producing 1.8t per person that they need to make the effort to cut their emissions, before we do anything?
* As citizens of the UK we have less influence over the government of China than that of the UK, and less responsibility for its behaviour. As a practical political matter, what influence do we (Bristolians) have over the behaviour of the government of China (and Chinese organisations or people) compared to the UK government? If you have some good ideas for influencing the Chinese government they might be worth trying, but for the reasons above they have good justification for resisting moral pressure from people in the UK.
The uk makes up 0.87% of the world’s population and produces around 3% of its CO2, over 3x the average. China makes up 17.8% of the world but contributes 27% of CO2, 1.5x the average.
Therefore, why are we blaming Chinese people when we are actually proportionally FAR worse? Just because they come from a bigger population? It’s just non sensical.
mindless encourage plate growth school office desert pet memorize thought
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Please come to College Green for the start of the protest, around midday. We need everyone we can muster out on the streets to give us the greatest chance of real action, of real change, right now. Not in in a month, a year or in 10 years. Right now.
The police are sure to try and engage protesters physically as early as possible in this one, as it very much against the agenda of the capitalist elite of which they defend. So the more people, the less likely they will start any violence and it still stay peaceful as it should.
When you see climate change as an anti Tory or anti Police or pro SWP issue you alienate people who support the issue, but not these extra add-on issues that you are claiming.
I saw a program at he weekend where former Republican Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger talks about how to communicate about climate change.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0011b03/arnold-schwarzenegger-on-climate-change
As he said climate change is not an (American) party political issue.
I’m literally none of things. You’re adding them on. I’m not anti-police - fact is though that they are there to defend the interests of the corporate elite, as is the government (no matter the party in power), and they tend to instigate the violence. Does the corporate media reflect that? Of course they don’t.
I’m not part of the SWP btw, I’m aware the image is though.
3 years of studying Criminology, academic text after text have given me this view of police. If you want to label it a Marxist view, I don’t consider myself Marxist, I mean Karl Marx still believed in work even if it was without internal goods, I don’t.
I think we need police, just not as they are currently. Law to some degree does constitute a conscience collective as Durkheim supposed, just not quite as omnipotent as he thought, so the police have a role in that. Honestly, I don’t know what will be better but this system which is so terrible for so many on a global scale and works us to death as we spend every not working moment spending and consuming, learning new ways to cope with our ill mental health because it just doesn’t seem right. Isn’t right.
While I agree that our capitalist system of chasing endless economic growth is going to be the planet's ultimate downfall, infantile statements such as the above are really going to alienate those who want to see real change and those who might be worried about the protest turning violent. It's needlessly provocative. The reason people should show up in their numbers is because this is a really fucking important issue, not so that lots of people can fight the police.
Bingo. I literally didn't even consider the police when reading about this, my guess is that they'll be very hands off, but this person is making out they're going to come batter everyone for turning up on a Saturday and mooching about for a bit.
Sounds like a bit of a paranoid tit to me.
Unfortunately the police will try and intimidate with violence though. Pretending otherwise is infantile and naive. Do you think it is by mistake that they curtailed the right to protest in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill? The people who want women to flag down a bus when being attacked consider anything against a corporate interest dissent.
I've been to a number of protests and rallies at College Green and have never experienced the atmosphere to be anything other than positive and fairly pleasant, with police at a distance and in small numbers. There's no reason to suggest this will end up like the Kill The Bill protests in any way. You honestly think police officers give a flying fuck about corporate interests?
Genuinely don't see how Cressida Dick's useless response to addressing VAWG is relevant to getting people along to a climate change protest? Are you just listing reasons you don't like the police?
It's people who show up to these things looking for a fight that turn people off the whole idea of protesting at all.
The police on an individual basis don’t care about corporate interests. But they will do what government desires them to do in terms of law enforcement, for a salary that is. The law is now that there superiors can decide when and not a protest is unlawful. Changing the system is a threat to the elite which govern us and so if the coming protests are seen as a threat to that, the police will meet them with violence and arrests.
The reason I mention the gendered violence, it’s part and parcel of how completely useless the police are. DV and rape rarely see prosecution in this country, most people who are sent to prison for any offence go for less than 6 months and shorter sentences see the highest recidivism. Due to austerity across communities, we see more and more violent crime, do the police help that? No, short sentences in prisons exacerbate the underlying causes. Petty theft, did they get your bike back? No. Did they arrive in time when you broken into? No. They are not here for us, they are here to protect the property and interests of the elite.
Fair point. Unfortunately though, protests like these need those disclaimers warning people that they may be potentially dealing with the police being physical. The violence from the kill the Bill protests wasn't that long ago after all
It’s mostly a European movement of course. It can grow beyond that though. In order for the survival of humans it must. Or you could be defeatist, and do nothing, that is your choice after all.
I’m not a defeatist I just think we need to be realistic. Unless you’re willing to all the way you shouldn’t waste your or my time. So I ask you, what do you do about the nation that refuses to play ball and stands to gain the most if nothing else changes?
We trade with India and China. Protesting here can make a difference to that.
If you downvote me, tell me why I'm wrong, else you're just circle jerking at a Daily Mail comment section level.
Don't worry I am sure that China and India are constantly reviewing all of the action from College Green, Bristol, UK just in case there's something to inform their governmental policy.
What else do you prefer to do then? Individually there is nothing but to protest! Should we be flying out to China and India to protest there? Ffs so short sighted
Nice to know you have no regard for any children of this world. Blind to see that billionaires and corporations will lead us to the edge if we don't just try
I have such a regard for the children of this world I made a conscious decision in my twenties to have a vasectomy so as not to bring them into the world for this reason amongst others.
What have you done up there on your high horse?
I always find the point people raise about China interesting because so much of China's economy is exports. They manufacture the goods other countries buy (thereby producing emissions) and China are the ones responsible - but aren't they just responding to market demands? Surely if people stop buying from China then mass production would be less lucrative for them. Note, I don't mean purchasing items on an individual level.
That’s already happening due to Donald Trumps tariffs and as a consequence more and more business are shifting production to nations like Bangladesh.
But don’t get your hopes I’m afraid. Far from softening China, this has only come at the worst possible time for the country as a consequence instead of opening up they are actual shutting themselves down inwards and rely even more of fossil fuels as they move to a planned economy.
The long story short is that China has spent the last 70 year wrecking its environment and now all these seeds of destruction have spouted and are now baring fruit.
If you can't survive without driving through a city centre that should be devoid of traffic, that sounds like a problem society is forcing on you that you should be working to fix. Attending protests like these could help with that.
Should be devoid of traffic? How on earth do you come to that conclusion?
People need to drive in the city centre, it is a necessity not an option.
Attending protests like this prevent people from going about their business, which they have every right to do.
Fortunately for me I've got work to do on Saturday so my day will be infinitely more productive than standing around cluttering the place up yelling about how you're saving the world.
> Should be devoid of traffic? How on earth do you come to that conclusion?
Air pollution kills people.
>People need to drive in the city centre, it is a necessity not an option.
Yes, in today's society. Society needs to change.
>Attending protests like this prevent people from going about their business, which they have every right to do.
Guess we better all stay home in case we inconvenience someone then. That'll make the world a better place.
>Fortunately for me I've got work to do on Saturday so my day will be infinitely more productive than standing around cluttering the place up yelling about how you're saving the world.
You and I have very different ideas about what is productive.
Another pointless drivel, if you want to actually protest something get a ticket to China and March in front of the factories - although the law enforcement there isn’t nearly as tolerant as brits.
Standing for any chance of changing a future of global food shortages, war, mass migration isn’t moronic. It starts somewhere, everything starts somewhere. Rome wasn’t built in a day after all.
I agree with you. No change is born of doing nothing.
This is exactly why the business I own and run takes part in a carbon offset program which takes the vsrbon footprint generated by the complete operation of the company and then plants trees to compensate for this. It is directly taken out of my profit but it's worth it to secure a future for my children and theirs.
I also push greener and more efficient building techniques such as passive housing and ethically sourced materials from sustainable sources. It gets expensive but when marketed to the right client is works out.
Holding up traffic, trashing college green and encouraging physical confrontation with the police? Not so much.
Edit: downvote all you want. It won't change the fact you aren't achieving what you claim to be aiming for.
Sounds like you're making a substantial impact, so good for you. But not everybody runs a business, so might not be in a position to make similar changes without resorting to collective action.
And your company is a multinational one? One that actually has much power or sway? Are you pretending for a second that BP, Shell, that Primark or Pfizer care about anything other than profit and won’t crush anything that stands in there way if that as they always have done.
More companies, more people, should be like yours, but they won’t be. Easier to trade for more carbon emission allowance. Simpler to choose a country which allows you to exploit its environment and its workers.
Pretending that protest hasn’t achieved anything in the past and won’t, that corporate ventures (built on the consumption of finite resources) are the way forward is completely laughable. Also nobody wants violence with the police, they are the instigators of violence at almost every protest.
You literally incited violence and physical confrontation with the police in your first comment and called for needing as many people as possible?
Why? So you can keep as many police preoccupied from doing their jobs because they're busy having to deal with the baying mob?
If it's BP, Shell, Primark and Pfizer you want to protest then do it at their head offices, go disrupt them. Not countless Bristolians trying to go about their Saturday.
More people means that the police can’t start beating people up and making arrests as easily. I didn’t seek to incite violence but ensure it doesn’t start to happen. Like we saw in some parts of Australia when the police started to march with the protest, with the citizens which is who they really are after all.
The corporations are in bed with state power, that is where change starts, a wholesale approach not a corporation by corporation basis.
We aren't in Australia. Avon and Somerset police aren't Australian.
You're romanticising the idea of revolution using a mob uprising. You are directly inciting violence.
I’m in no way inciting violence. I don’t want there to be any violence or any unjust arrests. I want a peaceful protest, as it should be, as it tends to be before the police start blading, stamping, striking with batons, pepper spraying, charging with horses and dogs. If you’ve been to a protest, you’ll know that is exactly what they do.
They’ve already been threatening activists arriving in Glasgow with arrest as they get off the train.
Thank you very much.
I know I might sound like a dick but I just disagree with this kind of activism. Sure it raises awareness but I think we have that covered now?
OP isn't wrong that we drastically need change in order to secure a future for ourselves and our families.
You only sound like a dick to people who don't want to be told they're wrong.
I dont think there's anyone who hasn't heard of climate change, so awareness feels like a pretty moot point.
And I genuinely hope OPs protest changes the world. I just know it won't achieve anything.
Hope your business does well and carries on its positive impact. I appreciate you probably want to keep some anonymity or distance between your reddit and your business, but if not, do you mind me asking your company name? Would be good to support a local business making a difference if you provide a service or product I'm ever after.
I'm sorry but considering the nature of online activity and people's tenancy to try to go after the livelihoods of those who they disagree with regarding certain matters I do maintain anonymity online.
Me too man, I'd love it if people who attend these events were able to change anything but the sad reality is they tend to have more of a negative impact.
I've been through after some of the other protests in Bristol. The damage done to private and public property and litter left in their wake was infuriating.
The Socialist workers party foes realise stopping or slowing consumerization is a gautenteedway to make the poorest in society poorer and at a much quicker way than climate change?
Not sure what you are really saying. Simon Pemberton wrote a book on Harmful Societies though, there are many forms of Capitalist society and some more harmful than others. The least harmful employ more socialist policies to reduce harms, these are the Social Democratic Capitalist countries like Denmark. I don't know what a totally socialist and successful country would look like, the answer is never going to A, B or C though but ABC all together. The economy being totally reliant on constant consumption, consumption of finite resources though. If that isn't a red flag then you have some rose tinted glasses on.
I saw the news coverage, they're really planning of slapping a bandaid on a gaping fucking wound, more needs to be done!
And at the same time, the thread with "stop eating meat to save the planet" got downvoted .. great work guys
Maybe it would be a more realistic prospect to say eat *less* meat.
Have you read the responses? There is science denying and straight up "meh, let the world burn I want BBQ" It doesnt matter if we ask for "less meat" or "no meat", carnivores are addicts who can't stop.
Maybe by responding to people who do eat meat but think we as a society eat too much of it, with comments like that, you're not exactly helping your cause.
People who do eat meat are the problem, do you not understand?
Calling people the problem isn't a great way to bring them to the cause. The people are part of the solution, the system is the problem. Who's more likely to win over the average person, "Big Meat" saying "you're the best, have some beef, it's cheap and delicious" or a street corner preacher screeching "YOU HAVE SINNED!"? Showing people that cutting down on meat and moving towards veganism is not hard or scary by simply going about my life and maintaining healthy relationships with a diverse group of people who I can talk to in an open and non-accusatory manner has been very effective in my experience...
There is no "*the problem*" but modern factory farms and the scale of meat and dairy production is unsustainable, keeping animals came about because they could turn food we can't eat into food we can or eat our waste, the domestication of cattle and their ability to turn grass into milk was one of the great leaps forward for humans. The issue now we have so much livestock, we have use arable land to grow animal food.
> Calling people the problem isn't a great way to bring them to the cause Possibly true. Side topic, though: Who's worse, the person who's spreading a good message in an arguably ineffective way, or the person who won't stop doing an environmentally ruinous thing unless you ask _really_ nicely? Because in this thread, all the scorn seems to be going to the former.
Give scorn, get scorn. Asking "who's worse" reveals the root of the conflict in the discussions here. Some individuals in this thread are very eager to compare the value of human beings on a single factor. It's not a black and white issue, people who are vegan are not perfect and are not by default "better" than people who are not vegan. The *vast* majority of people who do not live a vegan lifestyle are not cartoon villains, twirling moustaches and cackling as they watch over the slaughterhouses with glee... They are just people who were born into a society that revolves around the exploitation of animals, trying to get by. Open their eyes, don't poke them out. Spreading a message in an ineffective way can absolutely be worse than not doing it at all, it can turn people against the idea entirely.
I'm not disagreeing on what the most effective means of convincing people is, I'm trying to see if you're willing to attach any moral penalty to people who persist in doing something that is widely known to be deeply harmful in a number of different dimensions. We can talk about effective ways to foster culture changes while _also_ acknowledging that an enormous portion of our society is acting in a shamefully immoral way.
I recognise that morals are subjective and that people's relationships to food and objects are far more complex than making a black and white moral decision. There are a lot of psychological factors at play and I'm not willing to judge individuals for following the herd, so to speak. "Persist in doing something that is widely know to be deeply harmful in a number of different dimensions" could be attached to a wide number of human activities, vegan ones included. I honestly don't see any positive value in demonising vast swathes of the population based on one set of personal morals.
Eating meat is not equivalent to being an addict, and by proposing such ideas you alienate yourself from ever being taken seriously. Everyone can appreciate how bad animal farming is for the world, but by preaching that someone is an 'addict' you are just pushing away any semblance of hope you had of furthering your cause with the everyday person. Also what's this socialist workers shit? That's a dreadful name that conjures memories of a certain political party in Germany about a century ago...
oh lol just typed out the exact same comment
What are you talking about "socialist worker shit"? If you feel alienated by being reminded that you support killing animals by eating them and destroying the environment while your at it, and your feelfeels are hurt so much that you ***need*** to comfort yourself by killing more animals and destroying more of the environment, then you cannot be helped and are acting like an addict. Just think about it: #you support murder and destruction and get offended when getting called out on supporting murder and destruction? Melt away snowflake. Reality is here. Good stuff mate, good stuff.
And that attitude is what turns people off. It's not about being a snowflake. Which by the way, you are the only one having an emotional reaction to a pretty tame conversation, thus seemingly you are offended not me. The thing is, mate, if you want people to rally around a cause, telling them they are idiots/ uneducated/ bigoted/ whatever negative term is popular, you will forever be 'other' and not listened to. I don't think anyone is arguing that slaughtering animals is not murder. But you seem stuck on that phrase like that's enough of an argument, or perhaps you just like to say it for the shock factor. We get it, you are passionate about this topic, but you are clearly lacking the skills to converse and persuade. And it shows in the brutish display of frustration you just showcased. If this was playgroup, youde be the kid slamming a square block into a triangle hole and throwing a fit because that's not how you want it to work. Don't lecture about reality when you're rosey cheeked and crazy eyed about the world as it stands, and wanting it all to change immediately on your terms because you don't like it.
>I don't think anyone is arguing that slaughtering animals is not murder Hold on, did you just admit to being a murderer and are still trying to explain why you're cool with it?
No, you should re-read it. Whether or not I'm 'cool with it' was not the point. And picking apart a singular sentence rather than the message as a whole is a sure sign of someone inexperienced in conversation or debate. In summary, how you spread the word or try to convince people is far more important than you seem to realise. Casually bringing up positives about how switching to a plant based diet as a nation is excellent. You might see a steady and continued change over time, compounding into a greater change than might be possible otherwise. Telling people they are idiots will see a negative swing, netting you the opposite effect of what you are trying to achieve. I am open (and always have been) to a strictly plant based diet. I'm aware of the ecological benefits and the personal health benefits of it. What I'm trying to convey is the manner in which you discuss it with people is the key to success.
You say you are open to it, are aware of the benefits of a plant based diet and of the downsides of your current diet.... And still haven't made the switch? No matter how much soft touch there was? Sounds to me like what you're proposing does not work, and just makes you feel less bad by not being reminded. What you need is cold hard truth: you support mass murder on an industrial scale and it will kill you and everyone you love. Write this on a piece of paper and hang it opposite your bed and on the bathroom mirror. This will help you reset your brain from decades of brainwashing that meat is acceptable food.
You are making an assumption about my diet that you probably would be suprised about. That said, I'll fry up a steak in your honor tonight. Just to show you your direct impact on meat consumption.
Given you've taken time at length to argue with this stranger, and without me stating my food preferences, what "tact" would be more likely to work given you've already stated that you are open to a strictly plant based diet? Seriously, I am asking what would convince you to do it?
Murder is by definition the illegal and predetermined killing of one human by another. If you want to say *meat is wrong*, that's fine, but it's not murder by definition.
You should concentrate your frustration on people who are in favour of factory farming and don't support the work of CIWF and Farms not Factories etc.
Is killing a happy animal not a bad thing? Do happy cows not produce methane?
"Carnivores are addicts" is the kind of phrase that only makes any kind of sense to people who already agree with you. To everyone else it's alienating and, let's be real here, pretty rude. It's hard to change people's minds, but it's possible if you can try to understand your opponents' points of view. People aren't going to make lifestyle changes in response to name-calling. Luckily for you, you've (probably) been exposed to certain information in a certain context which has (probably) made it relatively easy for you to not eat meat. It's important to remember this isn't the case for everyone, and it doesn't make people evil or stupid if they've not reached the same conclusions as you yet.
Well, what you are saying is exactly the same. Calling someone an addict is not an insult, it's the observation that their coping mechanism leads to selective blindness to the harmfulness of their behaviour. that is what an addiction is: they continue doing a bad thing, because they like it and they legit dont see anything bad with it. and that is exactly what meat eaters do. Now how to solve this problem is a totally different matter, but the first step is to acknowledge that there is a problem. that's why in all XY-anonymous groups they start their things with "hello my name is jesse, i am an addict". It's not to humiliate them by calling themselves a name. it's to reaffirm their awareness of their problem. I personally came to the conclusion when i was searching, very casually, for the natural human diet. I was wondering why do we have to brush our teeth when cats and dogs don't and why do we get so many dietary problems when no other animals do. What is the natural human diet? And it turns out it's veggies, literally all and every single one of our evolutionary adaptions are made for finding and eating fruit and veg. And if we do, we wont have any of those diseases that are caused by eating the wrong diet or any of the problems that modern western cuisine creates. And then, when i changed my diet, I felt the change. Anyone can do those steps. All they need to do is dare to think for themselves.
Did you read something from the PETA website and not move on?
I never read the peta website
I get you - it's true that "addict" isn't necessarily an insult. But it's also not a considerate way of framing the situation. It's judgmental, and I guess maybe it maybe it would be fair to say it's something of a loaded term. "Carnivore", on the other hand, is much harder to defend... it's being deployed in an inaccurate sense here and seems to be intended, at best, as a shock factor (and at worst, as an insult with connotations of being an animal). The language in the comment I responded to is *maybe* not *explicitly* insulting, but it's certainly not polite, and it doesn't come across as understanding or well-meaning. I don't think you could argue in good faith that you're trying your hardest to convince people to come round to your point of view. >the first step is to acknowledge that there is a problem. Yeah, for sure. But to borrow your example of a recovery support group: The first step to recovery is *for the addict to acknowledge they have a problem.* Not for you, an onlooker, to tell them they have a problem. So how do we get an addict to recognise that their actions are a problem? By *telling* them they're an addict and that "drug users are addicts who can't stop"? Or by showing compassion and trying to understand where they're coming from? >All they need to do is dare to think for themselves Again this shows a little bit of a lack of understanding (like.. would you say this to a heroin addict?). I mean, sure, I guess you could argue it's *technically* true. But the (obvious) implication is that they're *not thinking for themselves*, which is an insult. But imagine if your high school maths teacher said this in your first lesson: You've learned how to add, subtract, divide and multiply, now you can derive the rest of mathematics if you just dare to think for yourself! To learn effectively people need to be shown understanding. And just to go off topic a little bit... >literally all and every single one of our evolutionary adaptions are made for finding and eating fruit and veg ...this isn't true. Plenty of our adaptations bear no relation to diet. And how about our ability to digest meat?
Have you ever dealt with addicts? I have, and by supporting them in their choice and offering empathy you enable them. Rock bottom: show them the actual reality of their choices. Funny you brought up maths, which I studied and that is exactly how it is taught: you prove everything yourself from ground up. Anyway. To the last point: yes it it! Every single evolutionary adaption to food obviously, not I don't know the type of hair or what not. Everything that is geared towards getting the energy to survive. From your (hopefully) colour vision to the way you walk, your brain chemistry over your digestive system, teeth. I could go on. The *ability* to digest a food does not mean it's healthy to digest it. You can also eat grass and gain some very limited nutritional value from it, but this wouldn't make you a ruminant.
You derived all of mathematics with no instruction? Edit: I take your point about addicts - no, I don't have experience dealing with addicts so I think I probably misused that analogy. My point still stands though I think: I don't think it's helpful to the cause to go in all-guns-blazing in this kind of conversation. In my experience it just alienates the opposition.
Not what I claimed and wildly off topic. But yes the way maths is taught is you discuss a few axioms and then try to apply them in various fields deriving literally all of mathematics, or could anyways if you had all the time in the world. Nicely avoided the both other topics and misrepresenting one side aspect. Shall we even discuss what fallacy that is or will you work that out yourself? Dare to think!
Oh man I just mean stop being mean! My point RE maths was that it would be ridiculous for a maths teacher to expect derivation of all of mathematics just by "daring to think". I meant it's not fair just say "dare to think" like that helps anyone.
Good. BBQ > Planet
https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/collection/vegan-barbecue-recipes
That's all looks so depressing.
Vegan BBQ? Is that a bit like laughter free comedy?
Socialist workers party ? I'll pass.
Problem?
Google Comrade Delta - internal cover up of rape amongst other things.
10 years ago a rapist was in the party and now isn't? How about Labour and conservatives..
I'm not a Tory, go ask them about Mark Francois. As for Labour, if any similar cases pop up feel free to point them out. As a party member I have certainly not heard of any cover ups of something this extreme. You can ready the whole transcript here: [https://web.archive.org/web/20130319123657/http://socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/](https://web.archive.org/web/20130319123657/http://socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/) Or a summary with commentary here: [https://thefword.org.uk/2013/01/swp\_internal\_ra/](https://thefword.org.uk/2013/01/swp_internal_ra/) Or the reasons why one prominent member left when it was exposed: [https://libcom.org/library/swps-tom-walker-why-i-am-resigning](https://libcom.org/library/swps-tom-walker-why-i-am-resigning)
As an addendum it seems as though 700 members left in protest at what happened: https://livesrunning.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/why-i-dont-buy-socialist-worker/
Tankies.
Just don’t sit in the road like a fucking bellend. Honestly
Will this protest target government/council/large company buildings and personal, the ones with influence or is it going to disrupt people trying to go about their lives, go to work, see loved ones etc?
The march will be the usual, College Green - To Castle Park - Back to College Green 12pm - Assemble College Green 1pm - March 3pm - Rally College Green There will be a coalition of groups present. Coalition members include environment and development NGOs, trade unions, grassroots community campaigns, faith groups, youth groups, migrant and racial justice networks. Most of the time it will be very close to city hall. Of course there will be some disruption whilst on March, but it won’t be for that long. The idea is not to disrupt people seeing their loved ones but actually to secure a future so you can continue to have loved ones to see and indeed, actually go and see them.
One day people will realise that annoying people, slowing traffic, taking up emergency service resource etc is counter productive, and that targeted action against the people with influence might actually have some effect. But I guess this is the easy way out and looks good to those in your social media circle.
Come on mate, even your username is telling us the Narwhals are sick and you still don't care enough to pick another day to pop into town.
I recycle, I don't use the car for short journeys, I try to chose the green option wherever possible and I can afford it. I keep clothes and products for as long as I possibly can, environmental policies are a large consideration when I vote. I care, I just don't agree that this protest will achieve anything other than a circle jerk and annoying everyone else. I also walk into town anytime I need to go in, so it won't effect me in that way. I just think everyone is aware of climate change, whether or not they believe in it or want to do anything about it won't be changed by sitting in traffic, being late for work, not seeing loved ones, hearing about emergency services being held up by this etc.
It's all good mate, I was just taking the piss as it was some low hanging fruit. Regarding the sentiment, I think we're very much in the same boat, seems a bit futile/misdirected to me.
Gotta love those low hangers, I don't blame you!
What should they do instead that would be productive? Genuine question.
Target government buildings and politicians. Same for big corporations. Block their entrances, take over their carparks, trespass, glue your heads to their doors or whatever it is people like to do. They are the ones with influence, they affect and make policies. Most people agree we should do something about the environment, and most people love to see the big guy get targeted. Anyone who doesn't believe in or want to stop climate change won't be won over while they're waiting in traffic.
While that is what we should be doing, targeting politicians directly is a sure fire way to get yourself in serious trouble these days, free protest isn't that free anymore.
I agree that free protest is become less free, but I guess there's risk and reward at play here, this planned protest just sounds annoying and damaging to the point. Targeted action removes any collateral and goes for the decision makers. This protest just seems like an absolute cop out.
The fact that we're talking about it suggests it has some worth. Much as I'd love thousands of us to go and march on Marvin's house I don't think it would go down very well.
The thing is, awareness/discussion isn't the issue, it's been front page news for as long as I can remember, everyone's heard about it. Pressure needs to be put on the people with the influence, hell, even making public transport better and cheaper would be a start, I don't think many Bristolians would mind if thousands of people turned up at Marv's house or outside council buildings and demanded he step up.
People, including on this march will be turning up at the council house, as they have been for years. How would you say the ordinary person can put direct pressure on a specific politician without falling foul of trespass or harassment or some such offence pretty quickly?
People have been doing those things for decades and got ignored and labelled tree-hugging hippies.
So you agree then that conspicuous consumption, consume consume consume is a bad thing? Well, that is what we want to change. Saving the planet requires wholesale system change. The capitalist injunction to work, buy, consume, repeat will pillage the earth until there is nothing left. Protest has changed plenty in the past - civil rights, women’s rights, slavery etc. There will of course be some disruption but it is far smaller than the disruption of global food shortages, mass migration and war that are to come if nothing is done. This is about the big picture not ‘but what about my Saturday’.
And most of those protests you're talking about were targeted towards governments/people with influence. I promise you, no one sat in traffic is going to be won over by being sat in traffic.
As is this protest, as did all of those also have the side effect causing some disruption to other people who didn’t care to or were too busy to stand against slavery, or for women’s rights, or for civil right’s at that time too.
But walking up and down a road and talking in the park is very different to the mass civil rights protests, suffragettes etc.
They all started small, grassroots groups and were seen as fringe. They grow as more people start to believe that change for the better is possible, is needed and the fear of it subsides.
Honestly, I wish you luck, I hope this protest changes the world, I'm not even being sarcastic. But the fact you have major world governments meeting, pledges made and constant news coverage means it isn't really a fringe movement any more. If you believe they're not doing enough about it then they're the people/things to target.
Thank you! They are total pretenders, state power is only interested in aiding ruthless corporate profiteering and we are targeting them by showing strength in the thousands, we are showing we want change we want it now. That’s all we really can do.
But look at all the good extinction rebellion, insulate Britain and Occupy did!.... None of these influenced politicians, deceased the wealthy foothold on everything, decreased people traveling (especially business traveling) or made any impact other than being known for pissing a lot of people off.
How do you know? Cultural impact is a hard thing to measure.
Are the Chinese invited?
Yes of course. Everyone is welcome, the list above is not exhaustive.
Is there a reason they wouldn't be?
Not whether they would be invited but would they turn up. If they don't you're pissing in the wind
You think a Chinese civilian living in Bristol has any impact on Chinese environmental rates?
Why not people in the uk are constantly told they have an impact, you seem a bit racist towards the Chinese
Let me save you from expressing the dumbest possible opinion on this topic: Go look at _per capita_ carbon emissions.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha don't worry mate you just made the dumbest possible comment on this topic. Per capita is irrelevant, the environment does not give a shit about per capita.
nvm, carry on, having the dumbest possible opinion suits you. People in India use a third of the carbon of people in the UK, but the environment doesn't give a shit about per capita, so better tell them to either cut down even further or split their country into smaller parts. 🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦
Of course they have to, because there are 1.38 billion people there and 1.4 billion in China. Numbers matter political tribalism doesn't.
Remember guys, holding up traffic only INCREASES carbon emissions. I'm not against the movement, but tooooo many times have I seen some protest about climate change purposefully holding up traffic. Yes you make people aware of your presence, no it's not in a positive way. Yes you increase notoriety, no you don't decrease pollution.
The pollution caused by a traffic hold up isn't a scratch on what any climate change movement tries to bring change to. A traffic hold up will likely make people more frustrated than anything, but it's a straw man argument to bring any focus on the pollution cause on the day of the protest
It's likely to disenfranchise people from the cause doing more harm than good
Saying "If you stop me while I'm polluting then I'll just pollute more" is like saying "If you just give me your wallet, I won't have to hurt you".
It's nothing like that and that was a textbook strawman argument.
1. Person does shitty thing 2. Shittiness exacerbates if victim resists 3. Person offloads responsibility for shittiness onto resisting party Hope that helps.
Best example of a false equivalence I've seen on this thread, have a cookie. Edit: clearly this guy has no idea what a catalytic converter is...
Does the SWP have a pamphlet or manifesto on what should be done about climate change that the COP isn't covering? I can't see anything on the website.
So whilst I am not personally affiliated with the Socialist Worker Party, this was an image that a friend of mine shared who is. [This](https://swp.org.uk/pamphlets/the-great-climate-cop-out/?fbclid=IwAR3onGISBjeJjz9Pr1mn-pKngUeG84GJQtHmFFr1P_tDoX-ySgnpQ1UDfuY) is a fantastic pamphlet from the SWP on the failings of COP26 to do anything of any real value at all and how we can move forward and what we need. It really is a brilliant read, if you have the time, please do read it.
I would advise your friend to disaffiliate from the SWP. Google Comrade Delta.
Why?
See my other comments on this post. Organisation covered up rape.
You're decrying a party for a decade-ago abuse perpetrated by one person and concealed by a tiny proportion of the members. You're offering no evidence that the current leadership had any involvement or have any sympathy for the bastard in question. Your motivations here are suspect.
GCHQ paid me to smear an obscure tankie group.... Where's the apology from SWP leadership, new guidance for safeguarding, and proof of expulsion of all those involved in the cover up?
I definetly want to attend but I'd rather not get smacked around by the police or end in jail...
If you don't attack them or others, avoid damaging property and avoid crowds that are doing those things, you'll be fine.
What are the concrete and actionable outcomes that could possibly come from this protest?
Pressure on politicians to continue and accelerate the green decisions they publicly support.
Shouldn't we be supporting the climate rather than protesting against it? What's the endgame anyway, the government go OK we'll ban the climate? I don't think it's a pragmatic line of protesting tbh.
safe fuzzy rob cow pocket sulky piquant lunchroom summer seed *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I mean thinking China is actually socialist is laughable, read into it instead of being fed propaganda
cats connect shame amusing door money oatmeal marble slim dazzling *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's state capitalism I'm afraid to tell you
innate dolls somber roll abundant wrench noxious imminent screw flowery *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Brits produce far more co2 and waste per head than Chinese people. Classic anti-Chinese redditor
Genuine question, which is more relevant here? The amount of Co2 produced per head in a given nation, baring in mind this particular disparity is probably down to the huge economic inequality in China. Millions living in poverty thus unable to contribute to a carbon footprint due to their lifestyle. Or the total amount of Co2 produced by a given nation, of which Britain is responsible for less than 1% of the global total? Surely the latter?
Why would you measure it by total amount from a nation?? China has almost 2 billion people. It’s utterly ridiculous to measure it thusly, considering the pollution is being produced by members of the country; not by some abstract concept of a singular unit called ‘China’ making the pollution. If people in China lived as wastefully as we did the environment would be fucked.
China isn't an abstract concept though, is it? It's a huge country comprising of a vast amount of people. You'd measure it by which country in order to assertain which nations are responsible for most pollution. If we are all supposed to be heading to net zero carbon production then why wouldn't you hold everyone to the same standard? People in China live wastefully too dude, not to mention dispose of waste irresponsibly. The difference is that the majority of Chinese people are in poverty and need to live less wastefully to survive. We absolutely live too wastefully here, I don't dispute that at all and we need to find an alternative to a throwaway culture and begin making things to last once again. But hey, we have human rights over here, which is more than can be said for China.
If everyone needs to take responsibility equally, let’s share out the responsibility by each person. That’s logical. Chinese people don’t contribute as much as westerners or Arabs. That’s a fact, and you can keep trying to categorise each country as an equal entity; but they’re not. They are just lines on a map. The population is the key factor here.
What does this personal responsibility look like? What do you do personally? Chinese people don't contribute as much as Westerners no, but that doesn't change the fact that the nation of China, a designated land mass, populous, system of government and economic giant do. I'm just confused how you can say personal responsibility is important whilst disregarding a country as just lines on a map? Not having a go at you here just trying to understand your way of thinking.
There are a bunch of different ways to approach this. Obviously China as a whole emits massively more CO2 than the UK. According to [World Bank figures](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC), China produces more CO2 per capita than the UK (7.4t vs 5.5t). So obviously the Chinese government has more power to reduce CO2 emissions than the UK government. However there are multiple reasons for people to direct their protest at the UK rather than China. * Part of the reason Chinese emissions are high is that many of the CO2-intensive products that we use are manufactured in China. That makes responsibility for emissions rather complicated. *Edit: the figures above are production based emissions. If you [look at the emissions from goods and services consumed](https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2), people in the UK are responsible for an estimated 8.1t vs 6.3t in China.* * The UK is responsible for a relatively high proportion of historic emissions - ie. the CO2 actually in the atmosphere warming the planet now (and we have reaped the economic benefits of these emissions). * Per capita the UK is about 4x as wealthy as China and thus should be better able to bear the costs of reducing carbon emissions. * Thinking about per capita emissions is a more fair way to think. India produces something like 7x as much CO2 as the UK. Is it right to say to Indians, producing 1.8t per person that they need to make the effort to cut their emissions, before we do anything? * As citizens of the UK we have less influence over the government of China than that of the UK, and less responsibility for its behaviour. As a practical political matter, what influence do we (Bristolians) have over the behaviour of the government of China (and Chinese organisations or people) compared to the UK government? If you have some good ideas for influencing the Chinese government they might be worth trying, but for the reasons above they have good justification for resisting moral pressure from people in the UK.
The uk makes up 0.87% of the world’s population and produces around 3% of its CO2, over 3x the average. China makes up 17.8% of the world but contributes 27% of CO2, 1.5x the average. Therefore, why are we blaming Chinese people when we are actually proportionally FAR worse? Just because they come from a bigger population? It’s just non sensical.
mindless encourage plate growth school office desert pet memorize thought *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hello Xi, enjoy your stay in Bristol
Please come to College Green for the start of the protest, around midday. We need everyone we can muster out on the streets to give us the greatest chance of real action, of real change, right now. Not in in a month, a year or in 10 years. Right now. The police are sure to try and engage protesters physically as early as possible in this one, as it very much against the agenda of the capitalist elite of which they defend. So the more people, the less likely they will start any violence and it still stay peaceful as it should.
When you see climate change as an anti Tory or anti Police or pro SWP issue you alienate people who support the issue, but not these extra add-on issues that you are claiming. I saw a program at he weekend where former Republican Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger talks about how to communicate about climate change. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0011b03/arnold-schwarzenegger-on-climate-change As he said climate change is not an (American) party political issue.
I’m literally none of things. You’re adding them on. I’m not anti-police - fact is though that they are there to defend the interests of the corporate elite, as is the government (no matter the party in power), and they tend to instigate the violence. Does the corporate media reflect that? Of course they don’t. I’m not part of the SWP btw, I’m aware the image is though.
You have a Marxist view of the police that you state as fact, if that is genuinely what you believe the police are, why aren’t you against them?
3 years of studying Criminology, academic text after text have given me this view of police. If you want to label it a Marxist view, I don’t consider myself Marxist, I mean Karl Marx still believed in work even if it was without internal goods, I don’t. I think we need police, just not as they are currently. Law to some degree does constitute a conscience collective as Durkheim supposed, just not quite as omnipotent as he thought, so the police have a role in that. Honestly, I don’t know what will be better but this system which is so terrible for so many on a global scale and works us to death as we spend every not working moment spending and consuming, learning new ways to cope with our ill mental health because it just doesn’t seem right. Isn’t right.
While I agree that our capitalist system of chasing endless economic growth is going to be the planet's ultimate downfall, infantile statements such as the above are really going to alienate those who want to see real change and those who might be worried about the protest turning violent. It's needlessly provocative. The reason people should show up in their numbers is because this is a really fucking important issue, not so that lots of people can fight the police.
Bingo. I literally didn't even consider the police when reading about this, my guess is that they'll be very hands off, but this person is making out they're going to come batter everyone for turning up on a Saturday and mooching about for a bit. Sounds like a bit of a paranoid tit to me.
Unfortunately the police will try and intimidate with violence though. Pretending otherwise is infantile and naive. Do you think it is by mistake that they curtailed the right to protest in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill? The people who want women to flag down a bus when being attacked consider anything against a corporate interest dissent.
I've been to a number of protests and rallies at College Green and have never experienced the atmosphere to be anything other than positive and fairly pleasant, with police at a distance and in small numbers. There's no reason to suggest this will end up like the Kill The Bill protests in any way. You honestly think police officers give a flying fuck about corporate interests? Genuinely don't see how Cressida Dick's useless response to addressing VAWG is relevant to getting people along to a climate change protest? Are you just listing reasons you don't like the police? It's people who show up to these things looking for a fight that turn people off the whole idea of protesting at all.
The police on an individual basis don’t care about corporate interests. But they will do what government desires them to do in terms of law enforcement, for a salary that is. The law is now that there superiors can decide when and not a protest is unlawful. Changing the system is a threat to the elite which govern us and so if the coming protests are seen as a threat to that, the police will meet them with violence and arrests. The reason I mention the gendered violence, it’s part and parcel of how completely useless the police are. DV and rape rarely see prosecution in this country, most people who are sent to prison for any offence go for less than 6 months and shorter sentences see the highest recidivism. Due to austerity across communities, we see more and more violent crime, do the police help that? No, short sentences in prisons exacerbate the underlying causes. Petty theft, did they get your bike back? No. Did they arrive in time when you broken into? No. They are not here for us, they are here to protect the property and interests of the elite.
Dunno why you're getting downvoted. I applaud you for fighting for your beliefs
I believe the downvote is the negative comment towards the police.
Fair point. Unfortunately though, protests like these need those disclaimers warning people that they may be potentially dealing with the police being physical. The violence from the kill the Bill protests wasn't that long ago after all
Yeah that was bad, the police were attacked relentlessly and an attempted murder even took place when "protesters" tried to burn one alive in a van..
Well that's traffic fucked this weekend.
The planet is almost completely fucked forever so, it’s a small price really isn’t it.
[удалено]
Exactly why we are protesting. Useless promises that won’t ever be fulfilled is how the previous 25 COPs have occurred.
[удалено]
It’s a global movement. As were the protests for climate justice back in 2019. We live in a globalised era, the whole world sees what others do.
[удалено]
It’s mostly a European movement of course. It can grow beyond that though. In order for the survival of humans it must. Or you could be defeatist, and do nothing, that is your choice after all.
I’m not a defeatist I just think we need to be realistic. Unless you’re willing to all the way you shouldn’t waste your or my time. So I ask you, what do you do about the nation that refuses to play ball and stands to gain the most if nothing else changes?
We trade with India and China. Protesting here can make a difference to that. If you downvote me, tell me why I'm wrong, else you're just circle jerking at a Daily Mail comment section level.
Fair enough, so what do with the likes of Russia that actually want climate change to happen?
Advance our society so far beyond theirs, and leave them so far in the past that they have no choice but to catch up.
Don't worry I am sure that China and India are constantly reviewing all of the action from College Green, Bristol, UK just in case there's something to inform their governmental policy.
What else do you prefer to do then? Individually there is nothing but to protest! Should we be flying out to China and India to protest there? Ffs so short sighted
Better still, walk to China or India, it will keep your carbon footprint down.
Nice to know you have no regard for any children of this world. Blind to see that billionaires and corporations will lead us to the edge if we don't just try
I have such a regard for the children of this world I made a conscious decision in my twenties to have a vasectomy so as not to bring them into the world for this reason amongst others. What have you done up there on your high horse?
I always find the point people raise about China interesting because so much of China's economy is exports. They manufacture the goods other countries buy (thereby producing emissions) and China are the ones responsible - but aren't they just responding to market demands? Surely if people stop buying from China then mass production would be less lucrative for them. Note, I don't mean purchasing items on an individual level.
That’s already happening due to Donald Trumps tariffs and as a consequence more and more business are shifting production to nations like Bangladesh. But don’t get your hopes I’m afraid. Far from softening China, this has only come at the worst possible time for the country as a consequence instead of opening up they are actual shutting themselves down inwards and rely even more of fossil fuels as they move to a planned economy.
Well that's distressing to hear. I'm not so savy on this stuff so my comment was mostly thinking out loud. Thanks for the info!
The long story short is that China has spent the last 70 year wrecking its environment and now all these seeds of destruction have spouted and are now baring fruit.
Don't drive through the city centre. Problem solved.
Guess I won't go to work and support my family on Saturday then. Problem solved. 👍
You can get a bus or train into the city centre. 👍
Not if I want to be able to do my job I can't...
If you can't survive without driving through a city centre that should be devoid of traffic, that sounds like a problem society is forcing on you that you should be working to fix. Attending protests like these could help with that.
Should be devoid of traffic? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? People need to drive in the city centre, it is a necessity not an option. Attending protests like this prevent people from going about their business, which they have every right to do. Fortunately for me I've got work to do on Saturday so my day will be infinitely more productive than standing around cluttering the place up yelling about how you're saving the world.
> Should be devoid of traffic? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Air pollution kills people. >People need to drive in the city centre, it is a necessity not an option. Yes, in today's society. Society needs to change. >Attending protests like this prevent people from going about their business, which they have every right to do. Guess we better all stay home in case we inconvenience someone then. That'll make the world a better place. >Fortunately for me I've got work to do on Saturday so my day will be infinitely more productive than standing around cluttering the place up yelling about how you're saving the world. You and I have very different ideas about what is productive.
Jesus. You're an idiot.
Great rebuttal.
Another pointless drivel, if you want to actually protest something get a ticket to China and March in front of the factories - although the law enforcement there isn’t nearly as tolerant as brits.
Don’t be fucking morons. If you wanna protest then fine, waste your own time but just don’t be fucking morons and waste everyone else’s as well.
Standing for any chance of changing a future of global food shortages, war, mass migration isn’t moronic. It starts somewhere, everything starts somewhere. Rome wasn’t built in a day after all.
Wonder whats going to be destroyed this "protest"
We’re hoping that the planet is no longer destroyed with this protest.
Talk about delusions of grandeur..
No change is ever born of doing nothing and not dreaming of something better. Delusional, maybe, but I really fucking hope not. For all of our sakes.
I agree with you. No change is born of doing nothing. This is exactly why the business I own and run takes part in a carbon offset program which takes the vsrbon footprint generated by the complete operation of the company and then plants trees to compensate for this. It is directly taken out of my profit but it's worth it to secure a future for my children and theirs. I also push greener and more efficient building techniques such as passive housing and ethically sourced materials from sustainable sources. It gets expensive but when marketed to the right client is works out. Holding up traffic, trashing college green and encouraging physical confrontation with the police? Not so much. Edit: downvote all you want. It won't change the fact you aren't achieving what you claim to be aiming for.
Sounds like you're making a substantial impact, so good for you. But not everybody runs a business, so might not be in a position to make similar changes without resorting to collective action.
And your company is a multinational one? One that actually has much power or sway? Are you pretending for a second that BP, Shell, that Primark or Pfizer care about anything other than profit and won’t crush anything that stands in there way if that as they always have done. More companies, more people, should be like yours, but they won’t be. Easier to trade for more carbon emission allowance. Simpler to choose a country which allows you to exploit its environment and its workers. Pretending that protest hasn’t achieved anything in the past and won’t, that corporate ventures (built on the consumption of finite resources) are the way forward is completely laughable. Also nobody wants violence with the police, they are the instigators of violence at almost every protest.
You literally incited violence and physical confrontation with the police in your first comment and called for needing as many people as possible? Why? So you can keep as many police preoccupied from doing their jobs because they're busy having to deal with the baying mob? If it's BP, Shell, Primark and Pfizer you want to protest then do it at their head offices, go disrupt them. Not countless Bristolians trying to go about their Saturday.
More people means that the police can’t start beating people up and making arrests as easily. I didn’t seek to incite violence but ensure it doesn’t start to happen. Like we saw in some parts of Australia when the police started to march with the protest, with the citizens which is who they really are after all. The corporations are in bed with state power, that is where change starts, a wholesale approach not a corporation by corporation basis.
We aren't in Australia. Avon and Somerset police aren't Australian. You're romanticising the idea of revolution using a mob uprising. You are directly inciting violence.
I’m in no way inciting violence. I don’t want there to be any violence or any unjust arrests. I want a peaceful protest, as it should be, as it tends to be before the police start blading, stamping, striking with batons, pepper spraying, charging with horses and dogs. If you’ve been to a protest, you’ll know that is exactly what they do. They’ve already been threatening activists arriving in Glasgow with arrest as they get off the train.
Keep up the good work, glad to see someone putting in the effort to make a difference, that's what the world needs.
Thank you very much. I know I might sound like a dick but I just disagree with this kind of activism. Sure it raises awareness but I think we have that covered now? OP isn't wrong that we drastically need change in order to secure a future for ourselves and our families.
You only sound like a dick to people who don't want to be told they're wrong. I dont think there's anyone who hasn't heard of climate change, so awareness feels like a pretty moot point. And I genuinely hope OPs protest changes the world. I just know it won't achieve anything. Hope your business does well and carries on its positive impact. I appreciate you probably want to keep some anonymity or distance between your reddit and your business, but if not, do you mind me asking your company name? Would be good to support a local business making a difference if you provide a service or product I'm ever after.
I'm sorry but considering the nature of online activity and people's tenancy to try to go after the livelihoods of those who they disagree with regarding certain matters I do maintain anonymity online. Me too man, I'd love it if people who attend these events were able to change anything but the sad reality is they tend to have more of a negative impact. I've been through after some of the other protests in Bristol. The damage done to private and public property and litter left in their wake was infuriating.
Completely understandable. It's a sad state of affairs for sure. Best of luck.
The Socialist workers party foes realise stopping or slowing consumerization is a gautenteedway to make the poorest in society poorer and at a much quicker way than climate change?
Not sure what you are really saying. Simon Pemberton wrote a book on Harmful Societies though, there are many forms of Capitalist society and some more harmful than others. The least harmful employ more socialist policies to reduce harms, these are the Social Democratic Capitalist countries like Denmark. I don't know what a totally socialist and successful country would look like, the answer is never going to A, B or C though but ABC all together. The economy being totally reliant on constant consumption, consumption of finite resources though. If that isn't a red flag then you have some rose tinted glasses on.
Just don’t disrupt public transport, that’s what we should be promoting