And mainstream environmentalists condemned eco-terrorists and mainstream animal rights activists condemned the militant actions of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty.
I'm sure mainstream climate activates will also condemn militant actions in the name of CO2 emissions.
But as the video points out, people talk about the non-violent civil rights movement, and ignore the militant civil rights movement. ("A riot is the language of the unheard"); ignore the militancy of the suffragette movement in the UK; etc.
The question is: why do/did all of these movements have/had a militant arm willing to break the law, while the modern anti-global warming doesn't. gus_massa suggested it was due to the risk of being caught, fined, and punished.
Which doesn't make sense to me given the examples I listed of people willing to risk much more severe consequences in the name of their causes.
I'm sure mainstream climate activates will also condemn militant actions in the name of CO2 emissions.
But as the video points out, people talk about the non-violent civil rights movement, and ignore the militant civil rights movement. ("A riot is the language of the unheard"); ignore the militancy of the suffragette movement in the UK; etc.
The question is: why do/did all of these movements have/had a militant arm willing to break the law, while the modern anti-global warming doesn't. gus_massa suggested it was due to the risk of being caught, fined, and punished.
Which doesn't make sense to me given the examples I listed of people willing to risk much more severe consequences in the name of their causes.