These statements, while true are lacking so many critical details that it borders on disinformation.
- He was a repeat offender of nonviolent crimes.
- He was held in contempt after the court refused to allow him to speak to the motivation behind his crime, a key component in any defence of nonviolent civil disobedience.
- Of course he said he would commit the “crime” again. It’s civil disobedience. What exactly are you expecting? The planet is still on fire and we’re still burning it.
The ambulance thing is pretty terrible, but when you consider the objective outcome of our current world-burning, it’s not an unexpected perspective. Given a few more years of inaction and profiteering, and the nonviolent actors will start giving up on being civil – especially if the penalty is the same regardless. We’ll be looking back on traffic blocking and orange paint with nostalgia.
steeznson@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Thank you for providing this extra context. I don’t think that people are really interrogating the circumstances properly when they compare sentences. Roger Hallam is a bona fide weirdo too - anyone who has not heard him being interviewed should listen to 5 mins of him describing his worldview.
VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Yeah, when you actually look at a lot of protest movements lemmy blindly supports they’re deeply problematic in many ways, of course people want easy answers and glib heros so they’ll get mad if you try and demonstrate nuance.
echodot@feddit.uk 4 months ago
I don’t think that’s actually true. Honestly it seems like a very limited subset that actually support these actions. Context and nuance be damned.