Berlin Tesla activists say civil disobedience is only option(dw.com)
dw.com
Berlin Tesla activists say civil disobedience is only option
https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-tesla-activists-say-civil-disobedience-is-only-option/a-69054007
86 comments
I think that’s more a statement about the weakness of their position than it is about Deutsche Welt’s reporting in this case.
This is a good point. If a reporter chooses to only mention in passing that the protest is about polluting drinking water then that means that drinking water pollution must not be a big deal
The article should have expanded on those points knowing that the reader would likely question this.
It means the reporter thinks the claim of drinking water pollution isn’t a big deal.
Reporters, like software engineers, have a broad range of competency. It’s hard to draw firm conclusions from their editorial choices.
Reporters, like software engineers, have a broad range of competency. It’s hard to draw firm conclusions from their editorial choices.
Pedantipoint but it's Deutsche Welle.
They are protesting because:
1. Construction will require clearcutting forest.
2. The factory will use large amounts of water and is being built in a region where water is scarce.
3. The factory will use solvents and paints which can cause groundwater pollution.
4. The local population is opposed to construction on environmental grounds, yet it seems construction will proceed anyway.
Of course, there are also people who are opposed to Tesla or the car industry in general, for both good and foolish reasons. I'd wager Musk being an outspoken anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer doesn't go over well in Germany.
It's shitty reporting, plain and simple. Even Wired got it right.
1. Construction will require clearcutting forest.
2. The factory will use large amounts of water and is being built in a region where water is scarce.
3. The factory will use solvents and paints which can cause groundwater pollution.
4. The local population is opposed to construction on environmental grounds, yet it seems construction will proceed anyway.
Of course, there are also people who are opposed to Tesla or the car industry in general, for both good and foolish reasons. I'd wager Musk being an outspoken anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer doesn't go over well in Germany.
It's shitty reporting, plain and simple. Even Wired got it right.
Yep, water looks to be a huge issue. The video(https://vimeo.com/938795435) in this article(https://unicornriot.ninja/2024/teslastoppen-elon-musks-water...) helped me better understand what's going on.
> the factory used almost 450,000 cubic meters of water, while it is licensed to use up to 1.8 million cubic meters, equivalent to the water consumption of a city with a population of 40,000 people.
> residents will only be allowed to use 105 liters of water per person per day, while the national average use is 128 liters per day.
> the factory used almost 450,000 cubic meters of water, while it is licensed to use up to 1.8 million cubic meters, equivalent to the water consumption of a city with a population of 40,000 people.
> residents will only be allowed to use 105 liters of water per person per day, while the national average use is 128 liters per day.
>1. They dislike Tesla in general because it's controlled by an anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer.
This sort of casual slander reveals more about your viewpoint than it does about the protestors, or Elon.
This sort of casual slander reveals more about your viewpoint than it does about the protestors, or Elon.
Did they actually said this on their answer tho?
What is the issue with cutting down trees when you can always plant more?
What is the issue with not making more Tesla factories?
Economic growth, competition, more EVs? If they plant the trees elsewhere, it's fine.
Why are chefs baking bread? There's buildings to construct.
People who refuse to continuously integrate new life experience and prefer to idle under one prestige title or two until they die are wild.
Feels a lot like rent seeking.
It’s a bit Middle Ages; god king has said this man is named Farmer, so he shall farm for life. A monolithic person.
Feels a lot like rent seeking.
It’s a bit Middle Ages; god king has said this man is named Farmer, so he shall farm for life. A monolithic person.
Their linked article regarding the attempted storming of the factory has more details:
https://www.dw.com/en/protesters-attempt-to-storm-teslas-fac...
In short, and according to the article: they protest the clearing of the nearby forest, the environmental impact of lithium mines, and the car-centric policy of the German government. The fact that it's Musk's company has also been mentioned here and there, though not in this article.
https://www.dw.com/en/protesters-attempt-to-storm-teslas-fac...
In short, and according to the article: they protest the clearing of the nearby forest, the environmental impact of lithium mines, and the car-centric policy of the German government. The fact that it's Musk's company has also been mentioned here and there, though not in this article.
> Why they oppose
It doesn't actually matter, these groups pop up wherever someone stacks more than two bricks on top of each other, and they always have their valid concerns (endangered hamsters, someone heard someone else might've seen a rare street pigeon brood somewhere nearby possibly, that one extra building will completely ruin the landscape etc. etc.)
It doesn't actually matter, these groups pop up wherever someone stacks more than two bricks on top of each other, and they always have their valid concerns (endangered hamsters, someone heard someone else might've seen a rare street pigeon brood somewhere nearby possibly, that one extra building will completely ruin the landscape etc. etc.)
There are more details here on why the activists oppose the action [1].
> They cited the protection of water resources as their primary concern.
> Part of the Tesla site is located in a so-called ‘drinking water protection area.’
> The company's expansion plans for the car factory were rejected by the majority of the citizens of Grünheide. Almost two-thirds voted against the plans last week.
> The vote is not legally binding, but is considered an important milestone.
[1] https://www.thelocal.de/20240229/why-are-activists-building-...
> They cited the protection of water resources as their primary concern.
> Part of the Tesla site is located in a so-called ‘drinking water protection area.’
> The company's expansion plans for the car factory were rejected by the majority of the citizens of Grünheide. Almost two-thirds voted against the plans last week.
> The vote is not legally binding, but is considered an important milestone.
[1] https://www.thelocal.de/20240229/why-are-activists-building-...
German environmentalism is NIMBY with extra steps.
Engineer I know that worked for a sterilization company said it was impossible to build a plant in Germany. Because there are three factions, businesses, labor, and greens. Business was mostly supportive. Labor wouldn't help because the factories employ like 20 people. And greens oppose because 'chemicals'
To do anything you need 2 of 3 and you only would get a half hearted, a neutral, and a vicious opposition.
To do anything you need 2 of 3 and you only would get a half hearted, a neutral, and a vicious opposition.
And unless you're pushing for anarchoprimitivism or the like, the factories building your environmentally friendly electric cars are going to have to be built somewhere. I'm reminded of an experience in high school near San Diego, where tons of people were opposed to a new (solar!) power plant out in the desert to the east and they were opposed to the high voltage power lines that would have brought power from this plant into the city. I'm sure there were other, less unhinged reasons to oppose it but the most vocal were the environmentalists opposing it because the transmission lines would interfere with some desert tortoise species habitat. Environmentalists protesting solar power is one of those hilarities that the universe just plops right on your lap sometimes.
I know of some owners of mini McMansions on 1-2 acre desert lots are up in arms about a 100MW solar plant being built nearby. I think they're pick any/all, old people that are fearful and hate change, OCD spectrum disorder types, and people that have transferred their well justified fear that the next brush fire will burn their houses down to the solar plant.
Notable that last one where people transfer anxiety about one thing to another thing is really common.
Notable that last one where people transfer anxiety about one thing to another thing is really common.
"Environmentally friendly" is not a binary description.
Electric cars may be more environmentally friendly than petroleum cars, but less environmentally friendly than a bicycle or electric bus.
Calling for more mass transit, better support for cycling, and a de-emphasis on personal automobile transport is not anarchoprimitivism.
Electric cars may be more environmentally friendly than petroleum cars, but less environmentally friendly than a bicycle or electric bus.
Calling for more mass transit, better support for cycling, and a de-emphasis on personal automobile transport is not anarchoprimitivism.
I am not jumping into any side of the argument here, but it is worth noting that the area of "my back yard" is much smaller, and more densely packed in European countries, as compared to the seemingly endless land of the USA.
> the area of the "my back yard" is much smaller, and more densely packed in European countries
Germany is the 65th most densely-populated country in the world, behind the U.K., Japan, the Netherlands, Taiwan and Singapore [1]. It is not too dense for industry, that’s literally just thinly-veiled NIMBYism.
My point is a realistic solution is never offered. Should Tesla not expand in favour of ICE production? Is the solution to deindustrialise Germany and put all the plants in Eastern Europe?
It’s a short-term fixation on nearby problems without regards for global impact, and it’s characteristic of the German greens.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_depend...
Germany is the 65th most densely-populated country in the world, behind the U.K., Japan, the Netherlands, Taiwan and Singapore [1]. It is not too dense for industry, that’s literally just thinly-veiled NIMBYism.
My point is a realistic solution is never offered. Should Tesla not expand in favour of ICE production? Is the solution to deindustrialise Germany and put all the plants in Eastern Europe?
It’s a short-term fixation on nearby problems without regards for global impact, and it’s characteristic of the German greens.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_depend...
Pairs well with corporates “next quarter without regards for global impact”
At some point we all just project “Gfy.” and refuse to “blink” and measure ourselves; we just keep rolling, saying “Gfy.” to those in the way. Maybe we couch that in pointless arguments like “where else should this unnecessary car company exist?”
Doesn’t really seem like just a “German greens” thing to project non-existent authority
At some point we all just project “Gfy.” and refuse to “blink” and measure ourselves; we just keep rolling, saying “Gfy.” to those in the way. Maybe we couch that in pointless arguments like “where else should this unnecessary car company exist?”
Doesn’t really seem like just a “German greens” thing to project non-existent authority
They're there for a model change. We don't need more cars, we need less cars (and less of several other things). So the agenda is very simple: just don't build. And yes, maybe Tesla will go somewhere else but other activists will fight there.
And yes, activists will loose that fight, but they'll go on and ultimately, things will change. Paid holidays came like this. The end of slavery too. And a few other things.
There's no "realistic solution" because there is simply no choice to make. It's just "no means no".
Now, hopefully, those activists won't buy cars or buy the least possible. And that will have an effect too. But then you'll say: "if we stop selling cars then what's the solution? what about the workforce". Then again: they'll do something else. Because the governments don't want to see unemployment. And maybe there will be too much unemployment. But then again, maybe it's time to adapt to a new world where 50% of population is unemployed. But believe me, when that number will be big enough, politics will adapt.
And yes, activists will loose that fight, but they'll go on and ultimately, things will change. Paid holidays came like this. The end of slavery too. And a few other things.
There's no "realistic solution" because there is simply no choice to make. It's just "no means no".
Now, hopefully, those activists won't buy cars or buy the least possible. And that will have an effect too. But then you'll say: "if we stop selling cars then what's the solution? what about the workforce". Then again: they'll do something else. Because the governments don't want to see unemployment. And maybe there will be too much unemployment. But then again, maybe it's time to adapt to a new world where 50% of population is unemployed. But believe me, when that number will be big enough, politics will adapt.
> We don't need more cars, we need less cars (and less of several other things). So the agenda is very simple: just don't build
Then motion for capping car sales, or adding a massive tax to them. This protest just shifts supply to imports and ICE vehicles. More pointedly: to cars not made in their backyard.
It has zero effect on Germany’s car cult743 because they’re not targeting cars broadly, they’re not even targeting cars near them; they’re targeting this (and only this) factory.
> when that number will be big enough, politics will adapt
If protests cause 50% unemployment (or a 50% drop in living standards), the historic political adaptation is a government that ends the right to protest.
Then motion for capping car sales, or adding a massive tax to them. This protest just shifts supply to imports and ICE vehicles. More pointedly: to cars not made in their backyard.
It has zero effect on Germany’s car cult743 because they’re not targeting cars broadly, they’re not even targeting cars near them; they’re targeting this (and only this) factory.
> when that number will be big enough, politics will adapt
If protests cause 50% unemployment (or a 50% drop in living standards), the historic political adaptation is a government that ends the right to protest.
> Sure, but the point is where would they prefer Tesla expand?
Tesla is not some necessity, it doesn't have to expand, this isn't like rejecting housing or new sanitation facilities.
Tesla is not some necessity, it doesn't have to expand, this isn't like rejecting housing or new sanitation facilities.
Oh, protecting local established manufacturers. That makes sense.
Why not? It's also not like this is a foreign established manufacturer like Toyota, it's an Elon Musk joint, I can't think of many less trustworthy businessmen off the top of my head. I think they have every reason to doubt any promises Tesla makes, and doubt its future as well.
Why is it always Tesla vs. ICE? Seems like a false dichotomy.
> Why is it always Tesla vs. ICE? Seems like a false dichotomy
Tesla is the largest EV-only manufacturer in Germany, and is the second-largest seller of EVs in the country [1]. (Also, unless there is a record of Tesla factories being unusually dirty, the protesters are protesting expanding EV production in general. That it’s owned by Tesla seems irrelevant, another manufacturer would raise the same stated concerns.)
[1] https://www.best-selling-cars.com/germany/2023-full-year-ger...
Tesla is the largest EV-only manufacturer in Germany, and is the second-largest seller of EVs in the country [1]. (Also, unless there is a record of Tesla factories being unusually dirty, the protesters are protesting expanding EV production in general. That it’s owned by Tesla seems irrelevant, another manufacturer would raise the same stated concerns.)
[1] https://www.best-selling-cars.com/germany/2023-full-year-ger...
German environmentalism is NIMBY combined with support for Russian fossil fuels.
For a bit more depth here, it turns out that German anti-nuclear (and other green energy source) activists were funded by Russia, a fossil fuel empire. [0]
It should also be noted that some of the US anti-nuclear activism was also funded by US fossil fuel industry, since the 1950's. [1]
[0] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-00127...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Fossil_f...
It should also be noted that some of the US anti-nuclear activism was also funded by US fossil fuel industry, since the 1950's. [1]
[0] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-00127...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Fossil_f...
> For a bit more depth here, it turns out that German anti-nuclear (and other green energy source) activists were funded by Russia, a fossil fuel empire.
That sentence falsely implies that all German anti-nuclear sentiment is a result of Russian (and previous soviet) financing, which gives the wrong impression, I think. Some more depth:
Growing up and living here, Germany’s anti-nuclear sentiment is majorly home-grown. You don’t get the multi-million public demonstrations just on foreign-financed activists. You don’t get multiple German federal election won just on foreign-financed activists. Insinuating so disregards the local politics and societal sentiment of Germany from ca. the 70s onwards.
Germany’s anti-nuclear sentiment is based on multiple strands, in my experience:
* General “radiation” skepticism, amplified by literature including children’s literature and tv reporting, sometimes even by real scandals like the leukemia thing.
* The very real possibility of Germany automatically becoming a nuclear battlefield of hundreds nuclear tactical explosions in the Cold War. Both the Warsaw Pact and NATO planned going nuclear from the first day. (Nuclear weapons and power are of course different things, but ... well)
* The search of nuclear waste storage location (not just spent nuclear fuel but secondary waste, high and intermediate level waste) was absurdly missmanaged. And then there is a string of accidents at pilot waste storage facilities. In my opinion you can’t explain the 2011 decision on Fukushima alone without talking about the preceding Asse II scandal.
* And yes, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima turbocharged pre-existing sentiments.
That is not to say Russia (and the Soviet Union before) as petro-states don’t have an interest and don’t try to corrupt. They certainly do.
Given what we know, they seem to have targeted politicians [1], more with a Pro-Gas-message, less with an anti-nuclear or green-energy-message. Both would be dumb for someone who wants to sell fossil fuels [2]. It’s no surprise that they seem now to target AfD and BWS, the far right and left parties with a pro-fossil-fuel-message. But that's the same in all western democracies.
[1] Small nitpick about your source [0]: Waszczykowski is a member of PIS and former minister in Poland’s PIS government. PIS has made a habit out of targeting Germany for domestic populist sentiment and in intra-EU squabbles. I’d interpret the question partially in that light. Giving the timing of that question I’d suspect the somewhat distorted kernel of truth must be Schwesig and the Nordstream II foundation, but I’d hesitate calling Schwesig an anti-nuclear activist, more a somewhat corrupt or naive politician.
[2] Russian/Soviet Gas was never a replacement for nuclear power in Germany. The vast majority of Germany’s gas usage is residential or industrial not in power plants. Burning gas domestically in apartment/house boilers for heat or in industrial applications doesn’t profit from electric energy – because replacing all these boilers is a multi-generational infrastructure project. Instead nuclear in Germany’s power mix was slowly replaced by by green energy and biofuels: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-st...
That sentence falsely implies that all German anti-nuclear sentiment is a result of Russian (and previous soviet) financing, which gives the wrong impression, I think. Some more depth:
Growing up and living here, Germany’s anti-nuclear sentiment is majorly home-grown. You don’t get the multi-million public demonstrations just on foreign-financed activists. You don’t get multiple German federal election won just on foreign-financed activists. Insinuating so disregards the local politics and societal sentiment of Germany from ca. the 70s onwards.
Germany’s anti-nuclear sentiment is based on multiple strands, in my experience:
* General “radiation” skepticism, amplified by literature including children’s literature and tv reporting, sometimes even by real scandals like the leukemia thing.
* The very real possibility of Germany automatically becoming a nuclear battlefield of hundreds nuclear tactical explosions in the Cold War. Both the Warsaw Pact and NATO planned going nuclear from the first day. (Nuclear weapons and power are of course different things, but ... well)
* The search of nuclear waste storage location (not just spent nuclear fuel but secondary waste, high and intermediate level waste) was absurdly missmanaged. And then there is a string of accidents at pilot waste storage facilities. In my opinion you can’t explain the 2011 decision on Fukushima alone without talking about the preceding Asse II scandal.
* And yes, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima turbocharged pre-existing sentiments.
That is not to say Russia (and the Soviet Union before) as petro-states don’t have an interest and don’t try to corrupt. They certainly do.
Given what we know, they seem to have targeted politicians [1], more with a Pro-Gas-message, less with an anti-nuclear or green-energy-message. Both would be dumb for someone who wants to sell fossil fuels [2]. It’s no surprise that they seem now to target AfD and BWS, the far right and left parties with a pro-fossil-fuel-message. But that's the same in all western democracies.
[1] Small nitpick about your source [0]: Waszczykowski is a member of PIS and former minister in Poland’s PIS government. PIS has made a habit out of targeting Germany for domestic populist sentiment and in intra-EU squabbles. I’d interpret the question partially in that light. Giving the timing of that question I’d suspect the somewhat distorted kernel of truth must be Schwesig and the Nordstream II foundation, but I’d hesitate calling Schwesig an anti-nuclear activist, more a somewhat corrupt or naive politician.
[2] Russian/Soviet Gas was never a replacement for nuclear power in Germany. The vast majority of Germany’s gas usage is residential or industrial not in power plants. Burning gas domestically in apartment/house boilers for heat or in industrial applications doesn’t profit from electric energy – because replacing all these boilers is a multi-generational infrastructure project. Instead nuclear in Germany’s power mix was slowly replaced by by green energy and biofuels: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-st...
You have taken the time to explain this to a further depth. Thank you.
Everyone should read this. The deal is that this is all much more complicated than a short comment could explain.
In agreement with much of what you have stated, please note my previous comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40330379
Regarding PiS, thanks for pointing that out. I certainly voted against them in the last election.
Everyone should read this. The deal is that this is all much more complicated than a short comment could explain.
In agreement with much of what you have stated, please note my previous comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40330379
Regarding PiS, thanks for pointing that out. I certainly voted against them in the last election.
Reading this i just think of the Fassbinder movie The Third Generation, where the protestors, in causing civil disobedience for their higher values, are really supported and lead on by the commercial interests of their parents.
In this case, while the protestors say they are against all car manufacturers, only Tesla is new to the massively automotive dominant corporate scene. Their ideological stand only serves the entrenched powers.
But very typisch Berlin in any case, no one can be surprised!
In this case, while the protestors say they are against all car manufacturers, only Tesla is new to the massively automotive dominant corporate scene. Their ideological stand only serves the entrenched powers.
But very typisch Berlin in any case, no one can be surprised!
>the protestors say they are against all car manufacturers
Which is ironic, considering the German economy supporting their education system, healthcare system, and welfare state that gave them that comfy lifestyle enabling them to have the time, money and freedom to protest without starving to death or being in debt for their education and healthcare, was built and funded in large part by that auto industry they're protesting against. There's something poetic about it here.
It's great to live in a country where you have the luxury to protest against investors bringing local jobs, since a lot of people in rich western nations take this for granted, as people in less fortunate nations, even very close to Germany, would kill to have Elon build a Tesla fab in their city and give them jobs (not that I'm a fan of his, quite the contrary, but more jobs on the market is always better for employees).
Which is ironic, considering the German economy supporting their education system, healthcare system, and welfare state that gave them that comfy lifestyle enabling them to have the time, money and freedom to protest without starving to death or being in debt for their education and healthcare, was built and funded in large part by that auto industry they're protesting against. There's something poetic about it here.
It's great to live in a country where you have the luxury to protest against investors bringing local jobs, since a lot of people in rich western nations take this for granted, as people in less fortunate nations, even very close to Germany, would kill to have Elon build a Tesla fab in their city and give them jobs (not that I'm a fan of his, quite the contrary, but more jobs on the market is always better for employees).
As long as they don't deny the fact that those industries funded their education, I don't think there's anything ironic about this. If your parents had slaves that grew and cooked your food, made clothes for you and taught you an education, would it mean you can never speak out against slavery?
I'm not supporting or opposing their point of view and actions here, but I do believe it is perfectly reasonable to take a stand against something you consider immoral or unfair.
My own decent lifestyle (and yours) can be traced to the technological progress that led to the current unfortunate climate and ecological trajectory - that doesn't mean I can't say "this isn't right, there are things we can do better". I won't, because ultimately I'm selfish and I really don't care, but if I did care, it wouldn't be wrong of me to stand up and be vocal about it.
I'm not supporting or opposing their point of view and actions here, but I do believe it is perfectly reasonable to take a stand against something you consider immoral or unfair.
My own decent lifestyle (and yours) can be traced to the technological progress that led to the current unfortunate climate and ecological trajectory - that doesn't mean I can't say "this isn't right, there are things we can do better". I won't, because ultimately I'm selfish and I really don't care, but if I did care, it wouldn't be wrong of me to stand up and be vocal about it.
> would it mean you can never speak out against slavery?
Of course not, but it's easier to speak against something when you already built your wealth on that something. It's effectively then like pulling the ladder form under you.
>but I do believe it is perfectly reasonable to take a stand against something you consider immoral or unfair.
So do I, but like I said, that something they're taking a stand against put food on the table for 1-2 generations. They need to first find an equally lucrative field before cutting the cord on the old one, otherwise a generation of workers will be left jobless and their country will have a huge hole in their budget.
It's not as easy to give up on something bad, if so many livelihoods(and votes) depend on that.
Of course not, but it's easier to speak against something when you already built your wealth on that something. It's effectively then like pulling the ladder form under you.
>but I do believe it is perfectly reasonable to take a stand against something you consider immoral or unfair.
So do I, but like I said, that something they're taking a stand against put food on the table for 1-2 generations. They need to first find an equally lucrative field before cutting the cord on the old one, otherwise a generation of workers will be left jobless and their country will have a huge hole in their budget.
It's not as easy to give up on something bad, if so many livelihoods(and votes) depend on that.
Do you think if you explained to these protesters that the Tesla factory will stimulate the economy and that they should be grateful they would change their minds? If Germany is anything like the US, these people are willing to risk their personal safety to fight for their beliefs. Maybe you should try to understand why someone would make such a choice instead of writing them off as ill-informed?
> people are willing to risk their personal safety to fight for their beliefs
Lots of people have stupid beliefs, and the German greens have a notorious penchant for them. Protests should be listened to, because civic activation takes effort. But a lot of them are protest movements first out looking for causes, or thinly-veiled NIMBYism, and this looks like a little bit of both. (Protesting expansion in all cases versus advocating for capping water use, for example.)
Lots of people have stupid beliefs, and the German greens have a notorious penchant for them. Protests should be listened to, because civic activation takes effort. But a lot of them are protest movements first out looking for causes, or thinly-veiled NIMBYism, and this looks like a little bit of both. (Protesting expansion in all cases versus advocating for capping water use, for example.)
> writing them off as ill-informed?
They are not ill-informed, they are ignorant and/or evil.
They are not ill-informed, they are ignorant and/or evil.
>Do you think if you explained to these protesters that the Tesla factory will stimulate the economy and that they should be grateful they would change their minds?
Nope, because, like I already said, they most likely have an environment and a lifestyle that allows them the legal and financial freedom to not depend on Tesla's jobs for survival, which is why I said that's a luxury they should cherish. Other countries and other people can't be so choosy to protest against more employment in their area, which I'm not sure the protesters or the HN comments replying to me can empathize with.
Or, to put it differently, it's easy to protest against a company you despise, when your employment is an another field, your stomach is full and your bed is warm and you have a welfare state to fund you when you don't, but a lot of people on this planet are not so fortunate. I hope It's clear now and I won't have to repeat this point for the third time.
>If Germany is anything like the US, these people are willing to risk their personal safety to fight for their beliefs.
Very good. Chapeau to them.
> instead of writing them off as ill-informed?
Where did I do that? Maybe read my comment again, but without the lens.
Nope, because, like I already said, they most likely have an environment and a lifestyle that allows them the legal and financial freedom to not depend on Tesla's jobs for survival, which is why I said that's a luxury they should cherish. Other countries and other people can't be so choosy to protest against more employment in their area, which I'm not sure the protesters or the HN comments replying to me can empathize with.
Or, to put it differently, it's easy to protest against a company you despise, when your employment is an another field, your stomach is full and your bed is warm and you have a welfare state to fund you when you don't, but a lot of people on this planet are not so fortunate. I hope It's clear now and I won't have to repeat this point for the third time.
>If Germany is anything like the US, these people are willing to risk their personal safety to fight for their beliefs.
Very good. Chapeau to them.
> instead of writing them off as ill-informed?
Where did I do that? Maybe read my comment again, but without the lens.
You've made effectively the same argument used against white students who went into the Deep South US in the 1960s to help the civil rights movement.
While those white students benefited from being raised in a segregationist culture - it gave them the time, money, and freedom to protest segregation - those benefits don't justify continued segregation.
While those white students benefited from being raised in a segregationist culture - it gave them the time, money, and freedom to protest segregation - those benefits don't justify continued segregation.
>You've made effectively the same argument used against white students who went into the Deep South US in the 1960s to help the civil rights movement.
I'm sure I definitely haven't, but with enough mental gymnastics I see how one can draw such parallels.
>those benefits don't justify [X]
And where did I say it's justified?
All I did was point out the realities of what's happening, kind like a news reporter. I don't have a dog in this fight.
I'm sure I definitely haven't, but with enough mental gymnastics I see how one can draw such parallels.
>those benefits don't justify [X]
And where did I say it's justified?
All I did was point out the realities of what's happening, kind like a news reporter. I don't have a dog in this fight.
> All I did was point out the realities of what's happening, like a news reporter. I don't have a dog in this fight.
You clearly do. And I’m not going to pile on and disagree with your opinion, but your comment up thread expresses a pretty clear point of view about what you think of the well off who are berliners protesting Tesla. It’s not “just the facts”. It’s the facts obviously interpreted through your view of the world. Your psychoanalysis of the protesters. Your judgement of the “irony” of their actions.
Most news is like this, yes. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But your “realities of what’s happening” are clearly different from that of other people. Let’s not pretend your point of view is in any way objective.
You clearly do. And I’m not going to pile on and disagree with your opinion, but your comment up thread expresses a pretty clear point of view about what you think of the well off who are berliners protesting Tesla. It’s not “just the facts”. It’s the facts obviously interpreted through your view of the world. Your psychoanalysis of the protesters. Your judgement of the “irony” of their actions.
Most news is like this, yes. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But your “realities of what’s happening” are clearly different from that of other people. Let’s not pretend your point of view is in any way objective.
[deleted]
>You clearly do.
How so? I don't own any Tesla stock, I don't live in Germany, I don't work for the auto industry, and I'm not part of the protesters. All I have is my bucket of popcorn and front row seat. Don't pretend you know me and make false accusations or I'll have to end this conversation here if you keep making arguments in bad faith.
>Let’s not pretend your point of view is in any way objective.
Then who's point of view is objective here then, given your logic? God's? Aliens'?
Isn't every reported piece out there someone's own opinion and interpretation on the matter through their world view?
How so? I don't own any Tesla stock, I don't live in Germany, I don't work for the auto industry, and I'm not part of the protesters. All I have is my bucket of popcorn and front row seat. Don't pretend you know me and make false accusations or I'll have to end this conversation here if you keep making arguments in bad faith.
>Let’s not pretend your point of view is in any way objective.
Then who's point of view is objective here then, given your logic? God's? Aliens'?
Isn't every reported piece out there someone's own opinion and interpretation on the matter through their world view?
Alright, lets do this. Your comment started with:
> Which is ironic, considering the German economy supporting their education system, healthcare system, and welfare state that gave them that comfy lifestyle enabling them to have the time, money and freedom to protest without starving to death...
This has a clear, obvious point of view in it. When I read your comment, I see an argument that the protest is illegitimate in some way because they're rich and entitled. This is clearly how everyone replying to your comment reads your words too, given how they replied.
"All I did was point out the realities of what's happening" is not a fair description of your comment. You aren't describing the situation "like a news reporter". You're describing it like a debater who's trying to win a debate.
Again, I have no problem with that. Its a comment thread on the internet. We debate things all the time; and its delightful. But claiming that you're "pointing out the realities of what's happening, like a news reporter" is wrong. In my mind, it either points to a complete lack of self awareness or ignorance about what news is.
> Then who's point of view is objective here then, given your logic? God's? Aliens'? Isn't every reported piece out there someone's own opinion and interpretation on the matter through their world view?
There's a spectrum of "truth" to "hot take". At the "truth" end are things where if two people independently observe the same phenomenon, they'll consistently describe it the same way. I'd say "There was a protest against tesla motors" is on the "truth" side of this line. At the "hot take" end is an inference based on some not-widely-accepted set of ideas. Essentially, anything where multiple reasonable people wouldn't all agree about their description of events. "The protesters are entitled due to their comfy welfare state. Any nearby poor country would love tesla to open a factory there." is a hot take. See the difference?
News aims to stay on the "truth" side of that spectrum. Thats the difference between news and a blog post, editorial or an opinion piece.
Absolute perfection is impossible. Its impossible to have no point of view at all when telling a story. (Even the choice of what to talk about is a form of journalistic bias). But, your comment is so obviously not news that its uncomfortable.
> Which is ironic, considering the German economy supporting their education system, healthcare system, and welfare state that gave them that comfy lifestyle enabling them to have the time, money and freedom to protest without starving to death...
This has a clear, obvious point of view in it. When I read your comment, I see an argument that the protest is illegitimate in some way because they're rich and entitled. This is clearly how everyone replying to your comment reads your words too, given how they replied.
"All I did was point out the realities of what's happening" is not a fair description of your comment. You aren't describing the situation "like a news reporter". You're describing it like a debater who's trying to win a debate.
Again, I have no problem with that. Its a comment thread on the internet. We debate things all the time; and its delightful. But claiming that you're "pointing out the realities of what's happening, like a news reporter" is wrong. In my mind, it either points to a complete lack of self awareness or ignorance about what news is.
> Then who's point of view is objective here then, given your logic? God's? Aliens'? Isn't every reported piece out there someone's own opinion and interpretation on the matter through their world view?
There's a spectrum of "truth" to "hot take". At the "truth" end are things where if two people independently observe the same phenomenon, they'll consistently describe it the same way. I'd say "There was a protest against tesla motors" is on the "truth" side of this line. At the "hot take" end is an inference based on some not-widely-accepted set of ideas. Essentially, anything where multiple reasonable people wouldn't all agree about their description of events. "The protesters are entitled due to their comfy welfare state. Any nearby poor country would love tesla to open a factory there." is a hot take. See the difference?
News aims to stay on the "truth" side of that spectrum. Thats the difference between news and a blog post, editorial or an opinion piece.
Absolute perfection is impossible. Its impossible to have no point of view at all when telling a story. (Even the choice of what to talk about is a form of journalistic bias). But, your comment is so obviously not news that its uncomfortable.
>When I read your comment, I see an argument that the protest is illegitimate in some way because they're rich and entitled.
That's obviously not what I meant if you care to read and Interpret my comment as a whole and not pull that one sentence out of of context. For further context see my other replies.
I'm sorry if that's what you understood but ultimately that's just YOUR own subjective interpretation of it through your own bias, which I can't be responsible of.
So to save time and brain cells I will end the discussion here and stop trying to convince you through trying to argument that the forth n-th time, since it's obviously not going anywhere due to your bias against me.
G'day to you mate.
That's obviously not what I meant if you care to read and Interpret my comment as a whole and not pull that one sentence out of of context. For further context see my other replies.
I'm sorry if that's what you understood but ultimately that's just YOUR own subjective interpretation of it through your own bias, which I can't be responsible of.
So to save time and brain cells I will end the discussion here and stop trying to convince you through trying to argument that the forth n-th time, since it's obviously not going anywhere due to your bias against me.
G'day to you mate.
Berlin activists do this to every major American company announcing opening a presence. They did it to google a few years ago ago. https://www.wired.com/story/google-campus-berlin-protests/ . Hell, all the bouncers at the famous nightclubs specifically train to "spot the tourist" and keep them out. Especially Americans.
Activism is as much as about a community as it is about an ideology, and there's certainly a huge community of activists in Berlin who want to keep their muscles active.
Activism is as much as about a community as it is about an ideology, and there's certainly a huge community of activists in Berlin who want to keep their muscles active.
Interesting they don’t protest at the factory of VW, or BMW, or Mercedes, or Porsche. Maybe it’s not actually the “environment” they’re protesting for.
It's also interesting how they protested against nuclear for many decades but not against coal or gas, especially the one coming from Russia.
It's as if they're fueled by ideology and not reality.
Edit: yes I know they also protested against coal mining last year with that wizard, but had they kept and invested in nuclear they wouldn't have needed to revert to coal
It's as if they're fueled by ideology and not reality.
Edit: yes I know they also protested against coal mining last year with that wizard, but had they kept and invested in nuclear they wouldn't have needed to revert to coal
They did not revert to coal: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-coal-power-pro...
Now. For years German coal imports were rising.
Only because Germany is producing less and less electricity. In 2017 Germany was producing 558 TWh vs 430 TWh last year...
There were protests against the coal industry, but on the mining side.
The first that I found was in 2008 against mining of brown coal[1].
I would argue that there are less targeted protest against coal because protest concerning climate change include being against using fossil fuels which includes brown coal.
Nuclear is a special case, as accidents have a higher risk with a bigger area affected, so there will be more people that are concerned about it(same as with having coal mined next door vs. having a power plant somewhere in your region).
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagebau_Garzweiler#Protest_und...
I would argue that there are less targeted protest against coal because protest concerning climate change include being against using fossil fuels which includes brown coal.
Nuclear is a special case, as accidents have a higher risk with a bigger area affected, so there will be more people that are concerned about it(same as with having coal mined next door vs. having a power plant somewhere in your region).
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagebau_Garzweiler#Protest_und...
The damage the Green’s caused in Germany after their deception on nuclear has set the movement back decades.
Yeah lol they're all for it as long as it's produced in a far off land with an innovative view on human rights and environmental protection.
zwaps(3)
sixQuarks(4)
At the absolute end of the article, there's a few passing mentions of clearing of forrest and groundwater, but that's it.