One of the most infuriating parts about living in this hyper-charged, partisan world is that it’s almost impossible to have an actual, substantive discussion about anything even slightly polarizing.
Any topic of discussion that’s remotely uncomfortable typically devolves into ad hominem attacks and people just end up angrier — not more enlightened — about whatever issue is at hand.
Take, for example, the topic of climate change.
Try, if you can, to ignore how charged of a topic that is for a moment, and just take the concern at its face value: We should absolutely be good stewards of the one earth that God has given us.
That should be inarguable, and it is absolutely worth discussing how to best accomplish that without adversely affecting the quality of life for swathes of people at a time.
The problem, then, is that whenever the left tries to start these difficult conversations, they do so in the most contemptible, obnoxious (and usually idiotic) way imaginable — typically not a great way to start any conversation, let alone a difficult one.
A recent example of this came on Thursday when climate protesters crashed the Metropolitan Opera in Manhattan, New York, according to The New York Times.
Protesters with the “Extinction Rebellion NYC” crashed the opening night of “Tannhäuser,” a Richard Wagner classic that was being revived.
These brave protesters harassing people trying to enjoy their everyday life barged in chanting “No Opera” from the balconies and unfurled a banner that read “No Opera On A Dead Planet,” causing the curtain to drop.
As is often the case with these idiotic demonstrations, they neither solved “climate change” nor did it last particularly long.
According to The Times, the initial interruption lasted all of eight minutes, before a second interruption pushed the total delay time to a more annoying 22 minutes.
Climate change protests strike tonight at Met Opera! Tannhäuser is a great opera btw! pic.twitter.com/DZlNMIOJqi
— Isiah Magsino (@IsiahMagsino) December 1, 2023
Should these protesters face legal repercussions?
Here’s the kicker though: “Extinction Rebellion NYC” did far more harm to its cause than good, if the reported reaction of the “Tannhäuser” audience was any indication.
When the original balcony rabble-rousers were detained, the audience “jeered the demonstrators and burst into applause when the curtains again opened.”
When the second protest began, the audience “shouted back at the protesters, with people screaming ‘Go away!’ ‘Go home!’ and ‘Shut up!'”
Notice that not a single report about the incident mentions an audience member muttering to his or herself “You know what? These guys have a point. How can I enjoy this opera when the planet is crying out to me?”
The idiocy of this new brand of climate protesting (which, much to this writer’s chagrin, is growing in popularity) actually hearkens back to the very same issue that torpedoed former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick.
If you’ll recall, Kaepernick began kneeling during the playing of “The Star-Spangled Banner” in 2016.
He claimed that he was doing it to bring attention to criminal justice reform, which, not unlike climate change, is one of those uncomfortable conversations worth having.
Now, had Kaepernick approached this topic by going to a podium after a game and saying that he was donating his next paycheck to fund better police training, he probably would not have gotten one-tenth of the backlash he got for his national anthem stunt.
But instead, just like “Extinction Rebellion NYC,” Kaepernick wanted to start a difficult conversation by, effectively, spitting in people’s faces. You don’t need a psychologist or behavioral scientist to tell you that that’s a less-than-ideal way to start any conversation.
It goes without saying that, as with many things in life, there are good ways and bad ways to start discussions.
If recent history is any example, the far left appears only capable of attempting to start discussions in the worst and most disrespectful way imaginable.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
