Hacker News Reader

Comment by CaptArmchair | Hacker News Reader

The Louvre is a public institution and the art preserved and on display in such institutions is a public good. It's nonsensical to glue oneself to / destroy a public good - especially one that has cultural value (and other types of value) - when trying to make a point about the impact unchecked private property has on the world.

If people aren't sympathetic to such protests, it's because cultural heritage helps shape a community's shared sense of identity. Gluing yourself to art is akin to compromising the integrity of that shared identity. If anything, that's the exact last thing you want to do if you hope to rally people around your cause.

Sure, maybe you're trying to signal the urgency to push a public action regarding climate change. But there are other, more poignant ways to do that.

View on HN

> But there are other, more poignant ways to do that.

What would you recommend?

Support any activist initiative that doesn't try to stimulate societal change through destroying public property.

What public property was destroyed?

Also, as I said elsewhere, the reason that protests like these are effective is because there are consequences; they are designed to be impossible to ignore. If glue on the frame of a painting is too much destruction, will you only consider protests which have negligible effect appropriate?

What evidence is there that these extinction rebellion protests have been effective? They are not going to convince anyone who isn’t already in agreement with them about climate policy, and to people on the fence they look like insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children. It’s not clear they even have any concrete policies positions on e.g. nuclear power generation, or zoning.

They’re just agitators and I wish they’d go away because they aren’t exactly helping, and become just a giant distraction.

> What evidence is there that these extinction rebellion protests have been effective?

Well, it's being discussed, no? That is generally the point of these types of things. The idea is to get from pre-contemplation to contemplation [1], which is a very important process for advocacy of any issue. The goal isn't to sway you to their side. The goal is to get you to think about this thing more. With that being said, they have definitely succeeded. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, the evidence that there is some sort of "blowback" effect, where these things ultimately harm the movement more than help it, isn't really verified in any way. Maybe that's the case, maybe it isn't, but the rich history of similar disruptive protests make me feel that they are ultimately helpful.

> They are not going to convince anyone who isn’t already in agreement with them about climate policy, and to people on the fence they look like insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children.

How does this differ from similar protests in the past? E.g. Rosa Parks, sit-ins, etc. Those protests similarly enraged and annoyed people, but they are now iconic demonstrations.

1. https://medicine.llu.edu/academics/resources/stages-change-m...

I just looked at their website and one of their stated goals is “Governments must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.”

This is not a serious organization, it’s useless fantasy. There is no scenario where net emissions are zero by 2025 outside of intentionally plunging the entire globe into unimaginable poverty. This isn’t going to happen because there is no scenario where people sign up for that, and if anyone tried there would be war. Their game is a distraction that takes away from people who are serious about real approaches to get to net zero on a realistic timeline.

Comparing these people - who again state their goal as turning off human civilization - to Rosa Parks is a bit much.

Wait, I feel like the goal posts are being moved - I was never arguing for their specific demands, we were talking about the methods of protest they use. Does that mean you've come around on your viewpoint?

> Comparing these people - who again state their goal as turning off human civilization - to Rosa Parks is a bit much.

How so? I drew the comparison because you were saying that protests which are viewed as whiny, annoying demonstrations are ineffective (I'm paraphrasing here), but I was making the point that many important and effective protests of the past were viewed the same way before. I'm not saying their cause is as noble, just that the methodology is comparable. If you think that they are not comparable, even though the reaction to each is generally the same, I'd be curious as to what you think makes them so unrelated.

I’m not moving anything. I’m expanding my argument. Not only are their tactics ineffective but their goals are an exercise in absurdity.

As for Rosa Parks, do you really not see the difference between gluing yourself to priceless art in the Louvre and deliberately flouting a specific law meant to oppress you? You can’t possibly not see the difference here, right? Their cause is not noble, it’s nuts. “Shut everything down by 2025!” is not a reasonable or realistic objective, and gluing yourself to stuff or pouring concrete in golf courses to annoy people just makes you look unserious, which they are. Inasmuch as they become the face of the movement to address climate change - and that seems to be at least an indirect outcome if not an objective - climate advocates will get associated with the stupidity. That hurts the overall movement away from fossil fuels.

> Not only are their tactics ineffective but their goals are an exercise in absurdity.

Wait, how do you know the tactics are ineffective?

> do you really not see the difference between gluing yourself to priceless art in the Louvre and deliberately flouting a specific law meant to oppress you?

Again, I'm not saying there aren't big differences... I'm saying that the specific complaint you had about XR, like them coming across as self-absorbed whiny children, is something that easily could have been said about important protests of the past. So the comparison is still relevant. You complained about these protests disrupting normal people (like the family on the way to the airport in your example), but that same type of disruption was common in these revered protests from the past. So I'll try one last time: if protests from the past caused similar levels of disruption, but we can agree that those who engaged in them were not "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children", then what makes protesters today using similarly disruptive methods "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children"?

I can't tell if you're trying to argue dishonestly. I'm not arguing that XR's goals are good, or sane. I'm not saying there are no differences between Civil Rights protests and climate crisis protests. I'm trying to understand why you see these people as "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children" instead of people simply engaging in protests using methods with precedent.

You started this entire thread by lauding XR and comparing them to powerful movements of the past, implying that showy and click-baity protests are the same thing as African Americans marching against specific laws that harmed them. You have offered no evidence that what they do specifically is actually effective at anything, and are hiding behind a forced and contrived comparison to the civil rights movement in the US. You have not offered anything beyond things like:

> the reason that protests like these are effective is because there are consequences; they are designed to be impossible to ignore.

> Well, it's being discussed, no? That is generally the point of these types of things.

And so on. How this works in reality is: if XR threatens to glue their faces to the pavement to block traffic if governments don’t shut down their economies, you end up with some people with their face glued to the pavement and nothing else.

> I'm trying to understand why you see these people as "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children" instead of people simply engaging in protests using methods with precedent.

You are not trying to understand anything. You have a romantic view of XR and liken then to civil rights protests because it excuses the absurdity of what they do. I’ve pointed out the unseriousness of this organization and I don’t feel it necessary to elaborate further on why comparisons to the civil rights movement are inappropriate. It’s not me who is arguing dishonestly.

Welp, no one can say I didn’t try with you! Later!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com