this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
334 points (96.6% liked)
worldnews
4836 readers
2 users here now
Rules:
-
Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
-
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
-
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.
Instance-wide rules always apply.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here, I'd say the point is the point at which they face legal consequences to what specific immediate end.
Harriet Tubman faced death as a consequence for directly freeing slaves, after suffering enslavement and terrible ongoing physical abuse that left her permanently brain damaged.
Greta taking things to the level of Civil Disobedience faces a slap on the wrist for the somewhat less impactful goal of delaying oil tankers for a while.
Greta is known for speaking loudly and publicly about climate change. Her level of effort and commitment is commendable, though I'm still not sure why she is held above the chorus of many many others saying the same stuff.
However elevating her to the level of people who faced literal torture and death seems to be a bit much, in some ways diminishing the efforts of those that did risk everything. I can see how some folks might roll their eyes when people start comparing efforts of protesters largely doing safe protests with low risk versus people who risked and sometimes gave everything for immediate dramatic result.