This article, on the blog of Gurwinder Bhogal (“The Prism“), is long, especially given today’s attention span. (It’s five pages long when printed out in 9-point single-spaced type). But it’s well worth reading for its comparison of today’s political demonstrations to the tantrums of toddlers.
All of us have noticed the childish antics of many protesters: throwing soup on paintings, blocking roads, screaming through bullhorns, spray-painting graffiti that actual working people have to clean up, and so on. This contrasts strongly with the gravitas of, say, the Civil Rights movement of the Sixties.
Gurwinder lists some of these tantrums, which come from both the Right and Left (though in different forms), and says that they show many aspects of not only tantrums, but the form of tantrums that, when they persist in adults, are considered a form of hard-to-cure mental illness, “cluster B personality disorders“.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. Click below to read, and I’ll group Gurwinder’s ideas into blocks (my grouping). Gurwinder’s words are indented. I’m taking only small portions of the article, so go read the whole thing (I assume the high-class readers here will have the patience).
What are examples of neotoddlerism?
Across the West, protests are getting larger, more frequent, and more disruptive. Over the weekend, the UK saw nationwide anti-immigration riots in which cars were flipped over and buildings set aflame. A few days before that, Just Stop Oil activists sprayed orange paint in the world’s second-busiest airport, Heathrow. The week before, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the US Congress, pro-Palestine activists rioted in Columbus Square, vandalizing memorials and releasing a swarm of maggots and worms in his Washington hotel.
These are just the latest examples of a growing trend of shock-activism that combines political protest and public nuisance, and which has this year seen activists across the West spray-paint Stonehenge, squat on university campuses, block access to roads and bridges, occupy museums and government buildings, storm sports events and movie premieres, attack priceless artworks and historical artifacts, and even desecrate war memorials and holocaust monuments.
What causes neotoddlerism?
This movement has its roots in the digital revolution of 2009, when use of smartphones and social media reached a critical mass, allowing strangers to easily unite and mobilize around shared views, which led to a rapid increase in the size and frequency of protests around the world. But protests didn’t just become bigger and more frequent, they also became more outrageous.
In infants, the chief causes of outrageous behavior — impulsivity, grandiosity, attention-seeking, and a sense of entitlement — are considered normal, but in adults they’re key symptoms of the “cluster-B” personality disorders. All four such disorders — narcissistic, histrionic, antisocial and borderline — are characterized by overemotionality and a need for validation. They’re also associated with heavy social media use, likely because dramatic cluster-B behaviors, such as playing the victim and catastrophizing, excel at getting attention on such platforms.
Gurwinder notes that because neotoddleristic behavior gets a lot of attention online compared to serious attempts to reform society, the attention the neotoddlers get simply energizes them to continue their tantrums. But. . .
Neotoddlerism doesn’t work.
The ease with which dramatic behavior gets attention online has convinced many political activists that a better world doesn’t require years of patient work, only a sufficient quantity of drama. Many activists on both the Left and Right now hope to bring about their ideal world the same way a spoiled brat acquires a toy they’ve been denied: by being as loud and hysterical as possible. This is neotoddlerism: the view that utopia can be achieved by acting like a three-year old.
. . . The Civil Rights movement succeeded because it was guided by leaders who had clear, specific, and realistic goals, and were able to negotiate to achieve them. Since neotoddlers “organize” mostly on social media, they’re decentralized, and don’t have leaders that can guide them or negotiate for them. They are therefore ruled by their loftiest ideals, in service to their basest impulses, and they don’t have the means to create, only to disrupt.
And so they disrupt, with the goal of spreading awareness. Yet their attempts to do so are misguided because, for all the issues they protest about, the problem is not a lack of awareness; it’s a lack of solutions. We don’t need to be told that war, crime, and pollution are bad, because we learned such lessons in primary school. What we need are clear, specific, and realistic plans of action. And the neotoddlers, being impulsive short-term thinkers, have only broad demands but no rational way to achieve them.
. . . Unsurprisingly, nuisance-protests often end up alienating ordinary people. While the public supports climate action, it has a negative opinion of Just Stop Oil. And while the public supports a ceasefire in Gaza, it has a negative opinion of the campus protesters. The same is true of Right-wing nuisance protests: while the public generally believes immigration should be curbed, it overwhelmingly opposes the recent riots, which have achieved little except convince the public that Right-wing extremism is a serious threat. So, though nuisance-protests do get attention, little of that attention is converted to sympathy and a lot to spite.
Both Left and Right engage in neotoddlerism
But if nuisance-protests are counterproductive, why are they spreading? Because protests are usually motivated more by emotion than reason. Take the recent Southport riots [JAC: these came from the Right, are performative, and you can read about them here.] These have been driven not by any rational plan but by the frustrations of Right-wingers and ordinary working-class people that their communities have been forgotten and their concerns about immigration are not being taken seriously by politicians. These frustrations, stoked by fake news, have led them to engage in infantile actions like vandalizing mosques and setting fire to police cars, all of which hurts their cause more than help it. It does, however, make them feel good for the moment, and they live mostly for the moment.
As for Left-wing neotoddlers, their motivations tend to be more complex (but no less childish), because they’re generally much more affluent than Right-wing neotoddlers. For instance, an analysis by the Washington Monthly revealed that the Gaza campus protests were largely confined to the most expensive and elite colleges. And Just Stop Oil members are themselves quick to admit that their movement is “privileged” and living in a white middle-class “student bubble”.
I’ve already stolen too many of Gurwinder’s words, but there’s one more issue, and this one I’ll partly paraphrase
How do you get rid of this narcissistic behavior?
While neotoddlerism is promoted and spread by the media—both MSM and social media—the reason the adult toddlers get attention is because we give them attention. That is, we like to read about people having adult tantrums and acting out, actions that make for a short and engaging read that is neither as tedious nor as boring as reading about people really effecting positive change in society. In the end, Gurwinder maintains, neotoddlerism is our fault, for we click on articles that describe it, and retweet them on X. It’s just, as Gurwinder says, “business sense” for the media to cover this stuff.
The way to stop this behavior, says Gurwinder, is exactly the way we stop infant tantrums: we ignore them. And so I’ll give one more quote:
The more we share and comment on clips of people throwing soup over paintings, or graffitiing on memorials, or vandalizing mosques, or blocking roads, or spraying orange paint at airports, or pitching tents on university campuses, the more we’ll see such events recur in real life.
The solution to neotoddlers, then, is the same as the one to regular spoiled brats: to ignore their outbursts and deny them attention. The media will stop reporting on their meltdowns when we stop engaging with them. They’ll stop amplifying — and thereby incentivizing — the neotoddlers when we do.
If we gave less attention to those who outrage us, and more to those who inspire us, it would incentivize young people to invest their idealism in, and derive their purpose from, finding practical solutions instead of merely restating the problem in ever sillier ways. So we should learn to react more slowly to news, to pay attention to what we pay attention to, and give more of our attention to behaviors we wish to encourage. It’s not just the neotoddlers who need to be less impulsive, we do too.
And if we take the time to consciously focus our attention, we find there are many people in this world who actually deserve it. While Greta Thunberg became world famous by yelling and blocking entrances to public buildings, the Dutch inventor Boyan Slat has been quietly removing plastic from the oceans through his startup, The Ocean Cleanup. His project recently hit a milestone of 15,000,000kg of trash removed from oceans and rivers worldwide, but it’s hardly been reported by the press.
. . .Every child begins life throwing tantrums. And every good parent learns to ignore them, because they know that acknowledging attention-seeking behaviors validates them, and prevents their kids from outgrowing them. If we wish to stop seeing good causes ruined by bad actors, we must stop rewarding immaturity. If we wish to usher in an age of post-toddlerism, we must stop making neotoddlers famous.
Gurwinder is, in the main, correct. The behavior is performative, childish, and often times lapses into near-insanity. But it would be very hard to stop paying attention to it. Can you resist clicking on a link describing food activists throwing soup on the Mona Lisa (it was protected by glass)? See? Even I couldn’t even resist linking to it, and after I just wrote this post!
Humans are curious, and are you really going to avoid clicking on an article saying that pro-Palestinian protestors blocked Lake Shore Drive, angering Chicago drivers? I want to know what happened! (And see–I linked again.)
But Gurwinder has a point. The media is simply not going to refrain from covering this stuff, so if we want them to stop, we should stop clicking. Still, given that this is very hard, I have an alternative suggestion:
PUNISH ILLEGAL PROTESTORS
We all know that punishing illegal demonstrations, particularly if they’re pro-Palestinian ones, doesn’t occur often. Encampers at the University of Chicago, for example, pretty much got off scot-free, as did the students who occupied buildings at Columbia University. People who block traffic don’t get arrested.
There are various reasons for failure to punish, but at least colleges should realize that the easier they go on protestors, the more protest will occur.
Since it seems that most of the protestors at Chicago who violated University Regulations were set free to menace the students again this year (and withheld diplomas were restored), I predict that we’re going to see the same kinds of protests we saw last year. We may not have an encampment (that was taken down and won’t be allowed to arise again), but given the promises of National Students for Justice in Palestine—the prime Neotoddler Group in America—that they’ll continue having tantrums even as Hamas loses its war with Israel, I think that this year is going to be a bumpy ride.
But I hope I’m wrong.
h/t: Mike
Yes, I’ve heard about cluster B personality disorders a while ago, and it really makes me wonder.
Chris Rufo definitely made a point of it, but I’m not sure if I should guess where else it comes up – Haidt, Shrier come to mind but I’d have to put down the morass of Hegel I’m currently looking through to ascertain some quotes!
Great comparison of a neo-toddler (Thunberg) vs. an adult who actually is working to improve the world (Slat).
Exactly. Reading this article made me think of the khalil gibran quote: “I learned silence from the talkative, tolerance from the intolerant…” Next time I find myself complaining I need to take a walk and pick up some garbage in my neighborhood.
Dr PCC(e) is correct that it is very hard to pay no attention to the antics of idiots, useful or otherwise, even if only to point and laugh. We can’t resist slowing down and rubbernecking at traffic accidents either; it’s only human.
But I think the problem is much deeper and more diabolical. As Matti Friedman pointed out in the Free Press article linked to in Sunday’s Hili dialog; the media will continue to pay attention to these antics because it serves the right people. Journalists are activists now and in a race to the bottom, dragging us all with them. There is no way out.
It’s hard to choose just one, but my favourite among these tantrums is the Extinction Rebellion kids who glue their hands to the surface of a road to fight climate change.
It’s not much more obtuse than soup on a work of art (neither is directly related to the goal of just stopping oil or whatever, the cars will eventually drive to their destinations but meanwhile they just sit there with engines idling). And it takes even less effort than toppling a statue (yer sitting down fer gawd’s sake). So the glue thing doesn’t really differ in those ways.
What really makes it stand out from the other forms of tantrum is the indiscriminate effects on people who are trying to do what the protestors support (EV drivers), the strong tendency for the protests to turn off (rather than attract) new supporters, the telegenic nature of the confrontations with drivers, and the high-stakes potential for the protesters to be injured (by police tearing the skin away from the asphalt) or killed (by drivers who just want to get to their jobs/schools/hospitals).
How many people have been injured during all the extintion rebelion protests? How many killed?
Several during the M25 blockade. One woman had her sick, elderly mother in the car and there’s film of her pleading with them to let her get past to take her to hospital. They refused. Several ambulances and fire brigade staff were caught up in it, who knows what lives were lost because of that.
A couple of years ago, some protesters glued their hands to the floor in a VW plant in Germany.
The VW staff turned the lights and heating off, and left them there. They were eventually arrested: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11337831/Climate-protestors-left-cold-dark-gluing-Volkswagen-shop-floor.html
I think this particular example should make the Neotoddler Hall of Fame:
https://youtu.be/lefmaNO1D9w?si=fpSash7yx6lgEmqE
And, of course, I clicked on it…
Just want to point out that the protests by groups like eXtintion Rebelion are not just temper tantrumes. They are well thought-out displays of civil disobedience that bring attention to the climate crisis. They use disruptive nonviolence.
They knew the painting they poured soup on was behind glass, and therefor would not be damaged. They also did not act violently or try to hide their identity, they take responsibility for their actions.
They want to make people see the hypocrisy of arresting someone for pretending to ruin a painting while actual criminals who kill people and destroy ecosystems receive no jail time, but often receive subsidies.
Of course we can debate the effectiveness of these actions, but unless we really have better ways of challenging the murderous status quo, we should not be so quick to dismiss the protestors.
Well, yes. The protests may have been well thought out in terms of the personal risks to the protestors themselves (“no harm done! let me go!”), but very often stupid, performative, obnoxious antics, masquerading as protest, have a profoundly negative impact on the issues they feel so strongly about, as most people not in the throws of a temper tantrum, will regard the protestors and their cause in the same ridiculous light.
It’s true, I think, that clowns can stir up the fervor of folks of similar mind and thus grow a cause. But clown cars fill up fast and, in the end, if you want change to happen, you’ve got to get the non-clowns on your side.
But i think this is too simplistic. They train their protestors for weeks. They train them on how to talk to the police and they train them on how to respond to violence. They are not clowns, they are highly organized. I just dont understand why we are all so outraged by the protestors and not the governments and companies who are destroying the world.
As for the protests being counterproductive, I think we need to take that risk because current action is nowhere near enough anyway. I’ll take soup on a painting over no more amazon rainforest.
“I’ll take soup on a painting over no more amazon rainforest.”
I don’t think I need to point out that that is a non-sequitur. Quite a bald one, actually.
Ok ill connect the two. The protestors are doing these stunts to bring attention to climate change. The more they draw attention, the more likely it is that the general public will pressure their government into taking more serious climate action.
Therefore, we are incurring mild frustrations like needing to clean soup off a plastic protector in front of a painting for the greater reward of slowing climate change.
You may disagree and think that these actions do not actually bring attention to climate change and that is fine (the evidence is mixed). If you do disagree and feel the need to desparage the protestors by calling them “neotoddlers”, then I urge you to get involved in whatever way you think is more productive.
I would aslo recommend reading up on civil disobedience. I recommend “common sense for the 21st century” by Roger Hallam
Aren’t we allowed to just say we disagree with all of what they are trying to accomplish, not just being uncomfortable with their methods? I’m glad their methods alienate people who might otherwise be tempted to agree with them. If someone stuck in a traffic disruption with lots of time to think says, “Gee, I’d like to just stop oil, too, and I’m driving an EV to prove it, but these guys are bringing discredit to the whole cause. Maybe I’ll change my mind and vote against the destruction of the oil and gas industry. These little shits have made me realize that only shits support that policy. I don’t want to be a shit.”
They didn’t train them about the rare lichen on Stonehenge.
There is not enough information to know if any lichen was damaged, but the answer seems to be no. I sound like a broken record, and dont want to dominate this thread anymore than i have (da roolz) but want to, once again, point out the obvious. Climate change is worse than biodegradable paint on some stones, worse than soup on a peice of glass, worse than blocking a road. If the protests lead to better policy, I would call that a success. There are 70 species of lichen on stonehenge, and 100s (if not thousands) of species lost to climate change in the past 10 years.
“If the protests lead to better policy….”
Ay, there’s the rub.
“I just dont understand why we are all so outraged by the protestors and not the governments and companies who are destroying the world.”
Because the people who are most negatively affected by the protestors are usually those of us who are just trying to make a living and go about our day. People on their commute to/from work, or trying to enjoy a museum on their vacation (which they probably don’t have much of), or a small business owner having to deal with disruptions/reduced traffic because a protest has taken over the area, for instance.
When you have to catch a train home quickly to pick up a child, and the entire station is blocked because of a protest, you don’t sympathize with the protestors. I’m very surprised that people such as yourselves are unable to grasp that simple point. I imagine that a lot of these protestors are in fact quite privileged and unable to identify with the typical working person, and are really just looking for something to fill their day with.
Just remember, preventing average Joe or Jane from getting home from work does nothing to affect the super rich or powerful interests that are the targets of the protest. And Joe or Jane won’t be patting you on the back for “raising awareness” while you add another hour or two to their commute.
Yes, as the article states, left-wing neotoddlers are seeking attention and typicall have well-thought out stunts for protests. The right-wing neotoddlers are generally venting anger and tend to be more violent/destructive.
Attention seeking is exactly what we need. How can one draw attention to a cause without seeking attention? It seems like we hold protestors to an impossible standard: draw attention to a cause without actually challenging the status quo or inconveniencing anyone. Btw, i think its terrible that Roger Hallam got 5 yrears in prison for nonviolent protest, a complete slap in the face to expression.
Au contraire five years is an eminently suitable punishment for conspiracy to commit a public nuisance. It’s meant to be slap against public nuisances. You think the King should have knighted him?
No, i dont believe in knighting or any other purly symbolic gestures. I do think 5 years for civil disobedience is crazy, considering that he has been nonviolent. The oil industry has been murderous (they dont block roads, they kill us and the rest of the planet with green house gas emissions).
+1
They don’t care about the person who missed their important cancer appointment and now has to wait three months for another one. I’ve quoted a few that I know about. I’m sure many, many more suffered because of their childish ‘action’, like the guy who was sacked for being late to work on his first day. I told them I’m turning my heating up for a month to protest their action.
Very-on-line folks adapted the term incel (for sad sometimes-violent misogynist men who consider themselves involuntary celibates who can’t get a date but feel they deserve one) to coin the term wordcel for people who can’t effect the change they want to see in meatspace and instead focus on the misuse of words and the emptying of their meaning in online spaces. I don’t mean to denigrate Brian’s feelings or intentions (which I’m sure are sincere and good), but phrases like “actual criminals who kill people and destroy ecosystems” and “murderous status quo” are classics in this genre.
BarPod had a good piece recently (episode 228, “Climate Karen”) about this.
I think we need a term like “procel” that’s specifically about this kind of performative demonstration that adds “awareness” to an issue that already has achieved saturation, turns off potential allies to the cause, achieves nothing concrete, and serves only to satisfy the protesters’ aspirations to be seen as good people (and in a way that leaves the protesters vulnerable to accusations of elitism in the face of harm and obstruction added to the lives of working-class people who just want to get to work).
And again no disrespect to Brian. I disagree with him but don’t think he’s a bad person.
Ok…
Does the oil industry not destroy ecosystems? Should i use euphemisms like “anthropogenic reduction in biodiversity”? How many people died from heat waves in Europe last year? Is the recent rise in temperature not caused by the current situation (status quo) of burning fossil fuels.
And about me not enacting change in real life, how do you know that exactly? Maybe I am an “online” person not doing enough in the “meatspace”, but maybe i do pleanty in the real world too, you have no idea.
Maybe im wrong about the protestors, but dont accuse me of being performative and dramatic. I have seen the decline of local ecosystems due to climate change (birds migrating late, invasive plants spreading further north, ponds drying up killing fish) and im saddened by it. I want more climate action. Knowlege without action is worse than denialism. Procel signing off
“Does the oil industry not destroy ecosystems?”
You didn’t say just that, Brian. What you said was; ““actual criminals who kill people and destroy ecosystems.”
Leave aside the problem that it isn’t really oil companies who are destroying ecosystems, is it? They’re being destroyed, after all, by people like you and me. No, it’s the first bit ….about murderous criminals. That is the very kind of rhetorical bomb Mike was talking about. Those bombs are often thrown because the argument they support is weak, but I don’t think so in this case. I think you just don’t see it.
Thats fair. Perhapse rhetorically i was a bit… extreme (on par with the others calling people toddlers and procels and such), but i stand by the point that the protestors are in the right (if not always perfect) and that civil disobedience is justified in the case of the climate crisis. There is no perfect solution to this messy problem, but its crazy to me to call the protestors toddlers. Seems like missallocated priorities.
Hey no accusations from me: I don’t think you’re being performative or dramatic. I’m not calling you a procel or anything else. You don’t glue your hands to the road, and I’m not opposed to all criticisms of fossil fuel use. We’re just talking about climate protests, and I’m just disagreeing with you about their meaning and importance. All good.
We might also point out that the protests are not really about the climate, either. Climate is just the sales pitch. Eventually they get to-
“The only logical response to the urgency of the climate crisis is through an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist socialist movement built here on our streets,”
and
“If climate injustice is the result of colonial racial capitalism and its sustaining fictions, then climate justice will require its abolition.”
Which are the sorts of beliefs that result from Marxist propaganda plus a very shallow understanding of the issues at hand. Thunberg’s railing against the Jews might be an example of this phenomenon.
For the person stopping traffic or dumping paint on electric cars, climate justice is just how they try to justify antisocial behaviors. The desire of an unhappy person to make a bunch of strangers miserable is very childish. The tactics used are more sophisticated than those employed by toddlers, but the motivation is similar.
+1
Capitalism brought about the technological innovation that is fossil fuels and the continued increase in efficiency of fossil fuel conversion into usable energy. Consider the alternative to fossil fuels with an ever-expanding population: air and water quality would be much worse with everyone burning wood and having piles of manure in the streets with the runoff going into the watershed.
When I see Extinction Rebellion, I, as someone who sees the news stories and doesn’t do a deep dive into what they actually support, see a group of babies who want to ruin everyone else’s lives for a goal that is not feasible or even desirable. OK, get rid of fossil fuels today – now what? Maybe they have a wide ranging plan to install more nuclear and are pushing fusion technology to solve the world’s energy problems, but if so I’m not seeing it. I don’t see them pushing an alternative energy future to allow for expansion of energy usage, rather it looks to me like they would prefer massive cuts to energy usage and personal wealth and freedoms when that is just not a reasonable path forward. Again, that’s how it looks based on the reports that I’ve scanned in the news, which means that is the impression that their stunts are providing.
Good article. I like Gurwinder but hadn’t seen that. I agree with most of it. I hadn’t considered the current mob’s behaviour against that of the civil rights movement. A stark contrast.
The description of ‘first-order thinkers’ is spot on. The ones who insist the government should write legislation to police the speech of those they disagree with, without realising that the next government might use the exact same legislation against *them*. I’ve told people several times “be careful what you wish for”.
The “cluster-B” personality disorders seem to run rampant on social media. When you try and engage in a civil debate with someone you disagree with, it usually ends up with you being blocked within a few comments. They cannot sustain a discussion, or consider things from the viewpoint of another.
The only thing I don’t agree with completely is his left/right divide. Many of the people in the UK who claim to be left are actually right wingers who just self identify as left to be trendy. That includes most of the trans activists. When you question them on socialist politics, they are clueless. I’m surprised he hasn’t come across that.
I’m also trying to figure out why we aren’t having violent riots in Scotland. Only about 25 people turned up in our largest city, Glasgow, but we haven’t had many problems with our immigrants as they have down south.
“Every child begins life throwing tantrums” True, and some don’t grow out of it.
“. . .Every child begins life throwing tantrums. And every good parent learns to ignore them, because they know that acknowledging attention-seeking behaviors validates them, and prevents their kids from outgrowing them.”
and
“There are various reasons for failure to punish, but at least colleges should realize that the easier they go on protestors, the more protest will occur.”
These two statements seem to be inconsistent. Is it possible that punishment is the reward some protesters are seeking and that more punishments may actually lead to more protests?
Good point, but the difference is that punishing a toddler for a tantrum will certainly have no effect in stopping them. On the other hand, I am pretty sure that the protestors are not SEEKING punishment, but desperately trying to avoid it. That is why they always demand no punishments. Rather than stop clicking on media reports, which stops protests indirectly (so he says), it seems to me more effective to punish protestors who violate the rules. I am about 100% sure that doing this would severely decrease the number of protests.
Fascinating piece that largely hits the mark. I agree, however, with EdwardM (#3 above) that it’s not so easy simply to ignore the babies, as the media is complicit and will keep the drumbeat going.
There need to be other ways to discredit them. Yes, as Jerry says, punish them for their transgressions. But one positive—if one can call it that—is that the infantile behavior is probably self-limiting to some extent. The more they disrupt the ongoing rhythm of life—blocking streets, defacing monuments, overturning gravestones, and all the rest—the more the public hates them.
One old fashioned method of discrediting behavior that’s seen as childish and disruptive is, of course, humor. Calling protestors blocking buildings and banging on drums “neotoddlers” is an obvious example.
The less benevolent part of my nature thinks that some Singapore-style justice delivered at the end of a rattan cane might be appropriate.
Just a side comment on ‘Every child begins life by throwing tantrums.’ No, they don’t. I have three children and two grandsons (one autistic). Not one unmanageable screaming match in more than fifty years. And we’re those wussy parents who don’t punish, but console and reason. Also, toddlers don’t gather in troops and soup each other up to tantrums: toddlers are frightened and repelled by another kid throwing a fit of temper.
Performative protest is not a tantrum.
I agree. Neither of my kids threw tantrums.
Since Brian Salkas has re-entered the chat perhaps he won’t regard this observation (not directed at him specifically) as talking behind his back.
What does one do when one believes passionately in some cause that very few other people regard as important enough to suffer any inconvenience over (like climate change — demanding subsidized electric cars doesn’t count) or that most other people actively oppose (like divesting from Israel and making life hell for Zionists)? If almost all people treasure the quality of life that we gained from burning fossil fuels, and don’t want their Jewish friends and colleagues to be harassed and threatened every day, what do the activists do next when hardly anyone is willing to support the cause that is so precious to them and to no one else? If no one listens to your methods of persuasion, whether those methods are tantrums or disciplined civil disobedience which you don’t want to be punished for, do you escalate or fold?
If the goal of the activists is indeed, as Brian allowed, to create so much disruption and inconvenience that the public will call for their governments to give in to their demands, this seems to me more likely to lead to calls for violent suppression of the conspiratorial nuisance-makers. This can’t end well for the activists. They don’t have the numbers if the state rolls up its sleeves and deals out repression. Cementing your hand to a road will look foolish if the police move in with batons, tear gas, and dogs — not all at the same time, poor puppies! — and you can’t run. For now the police are humouring you and indulging you but if you become dangerous that will change.
This is an excellent article. I think he is spot on.
I do think it’s incredible that these people expect no punishment for their outrageous demonstrations.