• @WraithGear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    94 months ago

    “In an opinion article in The New York Times, columnist Ezra Klein wrote that “[a] truer title would be ‘Why to Blow Up a Pipeline’”, characterizing Malm’s answer as “[because] nothing else has worked”. Stating that Malm was “less convincing” about “whether blowing up pipelines would work here, and now”, Klein argued that there would likely be political consequences to sabotage, including imprisonment of climate activists as well as political repression.[13]”

    Whelp, Erza Klein can eat the whole of my ass.

    • @Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Seems like a reasonable position to me. He’s saying that the argument amounts to “may as well try” and that it doesn’t get into specifics of what the actual material consequences of the action would be, which is a fair critique. He doesn’t say that the argument is wrong, just that it’s not fully explored.

      And he is right that retaliation by the state is the only truly foreseeable consequence, and that is a big deal. It’s the main reason to avoid picking fights with the state unless you’re in a position to win those fights. What “winning” looks like is up for debate and depends on your goals, but you have to consider the response.

      It sounds like this is a question that can only be answered with empirical testing.