Hacker News Reader

Comment by ProjectArcturis | Hacker News Reader

What would you recommend as a strategy that is hard to ignore but not disruptive to average people?

Why hard to ignore? Is the premise that everyone is ignorant of the special knowledge that only activists have and everyone should be forced to consume? Perhaps most people already know about the subject and are either already making their own changes or simply don't care. In both cases, hard to ignore activism does nothing to advance the cause and only serves to discredit the message by making it associated with unlikable and often seemingly unhinged activists. Of course if the purpose is to impress one's friends, mission accomplished.

The counterpoint to this is, of course, the civil rights movement, which forced the nation to see segregation and mobilized national support for immediate action.

Were the sufforogates easy to ignore when they invented the letter bomb?

They were evil people but not hard to ignore.

Can you name a group that was fighting for freedom and change that was never labelled terrorists or traitors?

It appeara anyone fighting an existing power structure, will always be accused, no matter what tactics they use.

Our moral systems aren't going to line up to the point I can deliver an answer that will satisfy you. The only moral tactic is pacifistic opting-out. Most activists are as evil as the people they are fighting.

You only believe in pacifism? If someone is doing evil, no one can morally stop them? That seems rough.

Lobbying

Imagine all these obnoxious climate activists went and lobbied politicians. I guess they don't have any grease to put in the politicians palms...?

Honestly, good answer.

Why do they need to be hard to ignore? They don’t have a right to attention.

What do “rights” have to do with the question? What a weird strawman.

You don’t, generally, have a “right” to not be annoyed by protestors, if that’s really the road you want to go down, here.

Sure I do. I have freedom of conscience and freedom of association. I am on no way obligated to give them a way to protest that ensures my attention.

Neither of those imply a right to not be annoyed. They imply a right to walk away from the annoyance. They would, similarly, have the “right” (in whatever weird sense the word is being used, here) to craft a plan that would make that difficult. And so on.

“Rights” are a bizarre/incoherent way to look at this.

They don't have any right to my attention precisely because I have the right to walk away. How is that not the moral framework involved?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com