World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Screw these guys. Whatever your position on the matter it's not the tourists themselves who are culpable, but the national and local government for allowing their economy to be so reliant on tourism.
It doesn't justify assaulting and harassing people in the streets.
Barcelona is not the only city in the world that attracts a large number of tourists. Many cities attract more. Yet Barcelona is the only place I see with so many of these xenophobic nutjobs.
If the government is sitting on its hands then you can't blame them for doing something themselves. So I would blame the government for the protests and not the protesters. It's their home, not a theme park.
Yes but you could raise awareness in different ways or complain in a different place.
Those tourists are already there. They aren’t gonna pack up and leave. Sure they are probably not going to recommend Barcelona to their friends in the future but that’s insignificant.
Those tourists can’t even vote in legislation that would fix it, because they don’t live there. So it’s literally barking at the wrong tree.
And for the record, I’m very much aware that protests are almost by definition annoying. I’m very much for all the climate protests even when they block roads and such.
They do and have. Why are y'all in here acting like the Catalonian activists aren't also running local campaigns against their regional and national governments?
This justifies assaulting people how, exactly?
It was a peaceful protest from what I can see in the video and in the article text. By assault, are you talking about the tiny cheap water pistols the two girls were squirting?
Yes. Downplay it all you want but it's still assault. Especially when acid attacks are not unheard of.
Words aren't black and white things. The cashier not issuing a receipt is financial fraud but we're talking about gum; they dodged 5 cents in taxes.
I personally haven't heard of those one single time, but even if they were a thing every now and then, are we going to assume that anyone spraying a few ml of water might be throwing acid just bcuz? The point of these protests is to raise attention to the problem, not to harm tourists. If someone goes that "extra mile", throw them behind bars, this instead of assuming that the thousand others might be trying to seriously injuring someone when they're, very likely, doing something that goes away after 2 minutes in the local weather.
It is not a secret that a few cities across southern Europe very pissy about the treatment they're getting. I'm not into victim blaming, but it is strange to think of these tourists as surprised when they got confronted with some sort of protests or message of disdain. In Portugal those are all over the place. From graffiti to protests. And sure, most of those do not involve any sort of physical touch with the tourists, however, if I was a tourist I'd be way madder at some of the protests I see over here than over taking a minuscule spray of water and those you wouldn't qualify as "assault" only as "speech".
You are defending assaulting strangers who have done nothing.
The internet is wild.
Keep muttering that word. Whatever.
Their Rickshaws and boats are fucking the air as well. Can I also say I'm being assaulted? I'm objectively being harmed.
Plenty of people over here are considering way less nice things that spraying water. You have some actual assault going on in places (as in, punching tourists in the face) and vandalism to drive them off, but yeah, let's pretend that the 5ml of water are the real harm.
Knowingly going to a country suffering from overtourism? Going for AirBnbs instead of hotels? Blocking locals from being able to go to work because whatever route they pick looks scenic? Not bothering to learn like three words or whatever to be able to say hello or goodbye?
That's a "I'm going to throw 500kg of glass in the general bin" kind of done nothing. They know they're being asses to the locals. Is it legal? Yes. It is also legal not to recycle.
They're dehumanizing us because "they paid" but 30 seconds of slight moisture is the real crime.
The 200€ of flights (which has plenty of negative externalities), 100€ for the AirBnb (which not only was someone's eviction but also likely dodged taxes), 100€ for random food (which likely dodged taxes) and 100€ in some random tourist trap (which many times dodge taxes). Those crimes do not count because they were intermediated by someone else? The thousands who get trespassing tourists? The littered nature? No, those do not count; what really counts is the bloody water.
The bulk of the tourism money doesn't come from the 90% of clueless asses filling the streets. Comes from the rich ones. But if the law was such that it only allowed the rich to come it would also be bad. So, like I asked you before, what's the actual solution? Just pretending that nothing is happening?
And FYI, every single one of these countries has not-that-far-places that are more than pleased to see tourist activity. You have like ecovillages & such where you get to participate, appreciate nature and do rural tourism, all while enjoying the Mediterranean weather they came for. But no, people really must take the 1000000000th picture of the Sagrada Familia so that their travel-ego fills up. And yet you think that we should have empathy over that? Housing and jobs disappearing because random twats want to take pictures. Oh noes, the moisture. Right...
I'm not muttering it. It's literally assault.
"Knowingly going to a country suffering from over tourism" oh, please. None of those consequences you listed are any individual tourist's fault. If the government has failed to regulate these things that's on them.
In any case, do the protestors know all of the people they assaulted individually? I somehow doubt it.
Dress it up however you want, you are advocating for indiscriminate xenophobic assault and harassment.
The point I pointed is that the law draws a hard line but reality has no such hard lines. Some ok things fall beyond the line. Some not ok things fall outside. Some common sense helps with that but even that's cultural.
As for "literally assault"; I can read Spanish but heavy legalese is not something I want to bother with reading. I'm simply assuming that it is not all that different from whatever the law is in here, across the border. You don't have conventional "assault" in Portuguese law, you have "offenses to the physical integrity", which can be "simple", "aggravated" or "by negligence". The first two assume intent to physically harm; the last one assumed that you had no intent but were terribly negligent and that led to someone being hurt. (Thats Artigo 143.º if you're into Deepl-checking that)
So, I don't even think that spraying people in water would constitute "assault". Maybe "harassment", you do have that in legalese; however I do believe that harassment needs to be targeted (like to a very finite group of people, not to hundreds of people).
Then you have "disturbances to the public peace", but if that was to be enforced it would affect tourists waaaay more than protestors. This kind of law is generally not enforced in order to just let the tourists be drunk in the middle of the road however they want without facing consequences over it.
So, to begin with, I don't think that anyone here is committing a crime. Your notion of what is a crime is totally up to your society; my society can have a totally different notion.
As a "fun fact", we recently got pseudo-nazis doing public speeches over "claiming back Portugal" and telling everyone that looked tourist to fuck off. That was not only legal but protected and anyone that attempted to mess with these events would be the one committing a crime.
That kind of logic implies that nobody is responsible for pollution or lack of recycling but governments. You are obviously responsible for your actions. There might be some government shaping them but ideally your conscience would suffice.
For some things you need help from some entity because it is just too hard (like not rewarding companies that put lead in food; silly example but you get it) but simple things like "save water", "recycle", "be nice to whoever is nice to you", "let people exit transit before you go in" are pretty much left for consciousness.
You can decide your next vacation location based on consciousness or you can do so based on ego. "Oh man, Barcelona is cheap and looks sexy in my travel curriculum" is a condemnable attitude.
Like I already asked you plenty of times; how do you regulate that without plenty of side effects?
Travel tax? You'd be harming businesses as well.
Forbid local housing from being used? Already a limitation in place; but too late; not the licenses have already been issued. (PS: These are the license counts for inner Lisbon (emerald is regular housing used for tourists and blue is proper tourism estate): https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/4bcf1c68-a837-45ed-9f83-15c4ed12e549.png)
Have some mandatory prioritization of locals over foreigners? That would be xenophobic.
I've lived in both Portugal and Barcelona (for one month but it was a thing), in both cases before the tourism boom. The people in both places were everything but xenophobic; they both used to be very welcoming. The thing is not xenophobia as the attitude would be the exact same if the problem was to arise from the same country (if the numbers were enough).
You can't simply become homeless and jobless while staying welcoming; esp when, not all but plenty of, tourists treat us as inferior. They consider us to have less rights than they do because "they paid". That's a real rhetoric you get to experience.
Have these two recent reddit posts (deepl them) as a first hand experience that's not even trying to be xenophobic but cannot not be: Guy from Azores: https://www.reddit.com/r/portugal/comments/1dy6t3f/odeio_turistas/
Foreigner that was shocked at the fact that we look like a British colony: https://www.reddit.com/r/portugal/comments/1e1c4ky/why_albufeira_is_a_british_colony/
I admit I'm not familiar with Spanish law specifically. However I do have a legal background including a master's in international law and I'm fluent in Spanish. It appears that this very comfortably fits the definition for misdemeanor assault without injury, based on a quick skim. In any case, since you bring up common sense, I think common sense would suggest that spraying people with water who are minding their own business is something that would be prohibited in any country with a sensible legal system. And regardless, it clearly fits the common sense everyday usage of the word.
Personally, if this happened to me, as an ex police officer who worked in London where the threat of acid attacks are very real, I would in the first instance be quite concerned, especially given my PTSD. I think in any civilised, peaceful country a person should be able to mind their own business without being accosted and having water sprayed on them because they look foreign. That shouldn't be controversial.
As for your point on personal responsibility and your comparison with climate change - yes, I would apply the exact same logic there. It's the responsibility of the government to regulate the private sector to minimise environmental impact. I would equally criticise assaulting end consumers as a form of climate protest. Would you not? I assume your personal carbon footprint is 0 in that case.
How do I suggest the government do it? I don't know. That's not my field. It probably would have some consequences yes - the same can be said for almost any government policy on almost anything. It's not relevant to my point, which is that it's not the fault of someone who goes to another country as a tourist. What's YOUR suggestion? Ban tourists? Continue to target them with harassment until your country is so hostile in accosting foreigners that nobody wants to go there? That's really a place you'd want to live?
I was in Barcelona last November. I stayed in a hotel for a few days and visited a few sites, went to the theatre, and ate out at a few restaurants. I did that because I enjoy Spanish culture and Barcelona seems like an interesting place, and because I can. I deserved to be harassed and assaulted for that? Really? For visiting somewhere I find interesting, causing no harm to anyone, and spending money in local businesses?
I'm not saying the people of Spain as a whole are xenophobic. I'm saying that these groups who assault and harass people in the streets because they think they're foreigners are xenophobic. That is a xenophobic attack. And you are currently advocating for it.
I live in a coastal city and during the summer months it is PACKED with tourists from all kinds of countries. I get the annoyance. I experience it first hand. I empathise. But it does NOT warrant this kind of behaviour targeted towards people who are perceived as foreign. That's not how civilised societies do things. And I'm finding it a bit perplexing that you are simultaneously advocating for that while also talking about making decisions based on conscience.
I'm not advocating for that being ok when devoid of context. Just like pointing a megaphone at some institution devoid of context will get you detained (we don't do "US's" version of freedom here; a protest that is not properly communication beforehand is forbidden for public security reasons).
If we put up some context to it, we're talking about targeting a demographic which does plenty of also-not-ok things. Does this mean that blind mobbism is ok? Nope. However, given that there's zero enforcement on both sides, this mob attitude is in a way to balance things rather-harmlessly in this precarious sittuation.
If laws were to be thoroughly enforced, many tourists would also be in trouble (eg. for loud noise after dark) their prices would be substantially higher (as it is generally believed that there's plenty of tax evasion and illegal properties in the sector). This means that the gov could definitely be doing things better and enforcing laws better. It is partially our fault because we're used to live in a lax system (which was mostly ok until this...).
Talking to you was literally the first time I've heard of those. For some reason I don't get, London is unsafe. I hear about knifes and all kinds of shit in there but I don't see why that's the case. In the Iberian peninsula it is quite rare for anyone to assault you that way, even in proper robberies.
As a tourist you are the one doing the decisions. The "let's pick this 50€ Ryanair over that 300€ whatever to a place that's not massified" was a decision.
I advocate for lesser evils. In climate matters I think that forcing costumers to pay for externalities would do the trick. Albeit, plenty of people would argue that to be worse than getting sprayed with water. Suddenly that 50€ flight becomes a 2500€ flight and then local tourism becomes much more enticing.
If you put a flat tax, you harm business.
If you put a quota to it, you'd have the business of pretending that travelers are business people instead of tourists.
If you limit hosting to hotels, you'd get a tremendous market pressure for housing to go down to raise hotels (which is better than "local housing" for tourists as it is more efficient and doesn't fuck up with neighbors).
If you limit the amount of properties that can do so, you guarantee that no local is ever able to go anywhere else in their own country without a friend lending a sofa.
If you simply spam enough properties such that everyone fits, whenever the economy goes bad (/Covid) the country goes snap bankrupt.
As you can probably imagine, living in a country that suffers from this, I've heard plenty of debate. There's no perfect solution and the solutions that seem to be the closest to good are basically gentrification.
Showing tourists that they're not welcome is probably one of the actions that causes the lesser amount of harm (both to locals, businesses and tourists) as basically most other measures ensure that the best thing most people would be able to afford would be a few towns away from home.
It is negative. I was living a very modest job and fired myself to voluntarily work for the transportation sector (eg. find ways to make public transit more enticing). The things I started doing were good so I eventually got paid for them. The last time I touched a plane was in 2014, I don't eat meat and I very rarely buy clothes. For some reason, society has this weird idea that following your conscience means living miserably.
"Oh, but then how will I visit Mars 3 times a year?" You do not. Traveling for leisure is not a god given right. I bet that most people have fairly nice towns not that far from home, and if they do not, why not vote locally to create nice towns locally? Architecture was a concept that was murdered in the 60's but we can redo things with time.
The farthest I've went was literally Barcelona and my vacations start with the question "where can I get to by train in less than a day?". No government is forcing me not to be an asshole, I can behave without hard rules. This way, If I ever need to go to... say... to Norway, for some researchers conference or whatever, I can take a plane, knowing that it pollutes a lot, yet without an heavy conscience because it is a one off, not the semestral dose of planes and poverty incentives.
And you can say "man, that's just your opinion", but the fact was that before massification people saw consideration for others as something important. They had different ideas of what was wrong or right, yet except for the odd asshat, people had the "I'm not going to overfish this lake because other people might also want to fish" attitude. That opinion that "not being considerate is not wrong" is just silly to my ears and is precisely what is fucking up the planet.
And yet that's generally not the case. If I had to place a bet, a lot of people that come to Portugal don't even know that it is not Spain. My parents work in the mail service and you have plenty of mail addressed like "Lisbon, Spain". They couldn't give less of a fuck about the place, simply figured that it was cheap and checked travel bingo card on it.
Are there considerate tourists that actually do care for the place and want to be behaved? Plenty. But the ratios are completely fucked. If you talk to people that work in the tourism sector they will point out that they are very VERY tired of dealing with the asses. What's their percentage? I have zero clue and this is not something measurable, but I personally had plenty of encounters that didn't quite go the way society should go.
Last year the pope came here and with him a lot of followers. The fuckers had free transportation passes and yet had to break transportation barriers and block off locals because they were all too busy chanting.
That was at the time of my last vacation. I got myself in a train to Spain to miss that and the majority of people I do know did equivalent trips. That's how saturated the environment is. Every time a big wave comes (pope, sport's event, Taylor Swift), we simply move away because the city is otherwise going to become unlivable.
Good thing I mentioned Taylor Swift because that's a prime demo of tourism being an asshole factory. She came here a few months ago. She was mass attended by Americans. People figured tickets in Portugal to be cheaper than wherever they live so they just flew here. Fuck the environment or the Portuguese being able to attend anything where they live without having to pay a 300% premium, right?
I advocate for whatever the utilitarian solution is and I do understand the concept of people having feelings when a loved one becomes homeless.
If sending a few hundred tourists to space makes live muuuuch more bearable for millions, then do it.
If having hundreds of locals annoyed makes the lives of millions of tourists great and that leaves the coffers full such that the locals can be compensated, then great.
It doesn't always need to go against tourists. The problem with tourists is that the current balance is not utilitarian at all. Millions are being left without a country they call home in the name of some other millions being able to prop up their vacation ego. This is a big consequence in exchange for a small reward.
As I stated, I'm an utilitarian. I advocate for whatever maximizes the global happiness, sustainability et all. Someone getting a miserable life requires a lot of people getting very very happy to balance.
A good part of my interference to "water attacks" is because I don't see myself getting any more fired up over them than I would over people chanting "go away". The water part, for me, a someone without any PTSD, it like "ehh, ok". Might not be for other people, but that was not the way I guessed it. I did not imagine a world with acid attacks nor did imagine getting someone's ass to my face in public transit to be any less "assault" than being sprayed with droplets of water. I reckon that is is simply my perception.
It's a protest. Same thing as climate protestors blocking the roads, no the individual commuters are not responsible for climate change, but the blocking roads is an effective way to draw attention to the issue.
Protests need to be disruptive or they won't be effective. These tourists had their day/lunch ruined at worst, the protestors are fighting for affordable living in the city they live in and they clearly have found an effective way to protest.
So yeah no, I feel bad for the tourists but that's about it.
Climate protesters don't assault people who are just sitting down eating. It's not the same.
(I actually would criticise those climate groups for separate reasons but that's a different conversation).
Those tourists can’t even vote. With climate protests at least you are raising awareness in people that can have some change or make some pressure.
Yes protests need to be disruptive but spraying people in London would be just as effective as spraying tourists that are ALREADY in their city.
These specific tourists were not targetted to change their minds. It was done to spread awareness and get coverage in the international media that Barcelona has nad enough of tourists.
It worked. So it 's a successful protest.
I guess you are right that it created news but I doubt it will have the desired effect. One does not guarantee the other necessarily
If we only did things that have guaranteed outcomes, not much would get done.
Then you're not paying attention. Plenty of such protests-with-thousands in a few major places that were overwhelmed. Barcelona, Maiorca, Lisbon, Algarve, probably most of Greece, Italy, Southern France, etc...
It is not false that the government has blame, however, there's plenty of preverse incentive in here. Land prices skyrocketed and a lot of very well positioned individuals got very well in life.
At the end of the day, being a decent human being doesn't require laws. If you know you're competing with locals whose rents already are higher than their salaries, with their businesses that now can't support rents any longer and generally browsing fake-local-crap (and I assure you that most mass tourism is), then you're just making yourself unwelcome.
Even the "tourists are injecting money in the local economy" argument is in a good part bullshit. Ofc that some of it loops to everyone else, but the gains are generally very poorly distributed and many times negative as that money destroys homes and jobs.
If you go to some parts of Lisbon, you're not going to be able to hear one single word of Portuguese. Just yday I heard about a guy complaining that tourists attempted to forbid him from going into a waterfall near his home because... It ruins their photos and they waited in line to have them while the guy just "skipped the queue". Mass-tourists can't just figure that it is a country where people live and not a theme park, the "we paid to come here, we have rights" argument is heard plenty of times.
Nothing worse than hearing that self-entitled argument along with "you're not complaining when we use all our money here are ye????" Makes my blood boil.
Aren't you figuring that we'd rather not have that? That money is mostly not reaching anyone but landlords, restaurant owners and rickshaws. We get poorer with tourism money.
The jobs that pay us more than 860€ (the minimum salary) disappear with mass tourism because 1) land values get too expensive 2) a lot of highly qualified people just emigrated away after being unable to pay rent.
People who attended STEM fields know that the way to get proper jobs is to leave the country, which is bloody unfair because we used to have them. Instead of 3k/mo white-collar jobs we get 860€/mo whipping simulators dealing with entitled tourists.
Ofc that not every job disappeared but since the economy is highly uncompetitive with it's tourism focus, you get the worst possible scenario for everything else.
I'm going to guess you're using an empiric "you", because I was trying to agree with you! Everything you said is on point.
Sorry, how does any of this justify assaulting tourists?
I'm from London and now live in another tourist heavy city. It doesn't justify assaulting people.
It doesn't justify assaulting (albeit calling 3ml of water in the Mediterranean summer an assault is a bit of a stretch), but that was not the only thing you said. You were isolating Barcelona as a special case. I simply said that it is not isolated at all, that every popular region along the entire Mediterranean coast is suffering from the same.
London's situation is bad but 1) 6 times more population dilutes tourism way better 2) London's tourism is "going there, taking pictures, famous Harry Potter things, giant ferry wheel, bye" instead of "I like this weather and everything is cheap; I think I'll stay here for as long as my visa allows" 3) the richer you are the least affected you get as tourists can't compete with you all that easily 4) London has that other phenomena, which is not quite tourism, called mass immigration, and the last time I've heard about citizen actions towards the problem they were following the "we no longer want to participate in anything with out neighbors" path which is IMHO a bit more extreme than just being mad en masse with a relatively harmless protest.
From a political standpoint, Madrid is an oppressive mess. Catalonia is in the podium for the most productive region and this is killing it slowly (as it did with Portugal and parts of other countries). You can't quite say the same about London. In London you might end up living far from the city center but your economic woes do not come from the thousands of immigrants nor the tourists all around.
Barcelona DOES have a unique reputation for these anti-tourist groups. That's why I said Barcelona was unique. But it's NOT unique in hosting large numbers of tourists. Not even close.
The literal exact same thing happens in every other alike place. We have the same in Lisbon.
The pieces of information foreigners get do not necessarily match the local truths.
As an example: I do volunteering at a kind-of-food-bank. It is obviously free to do. However, if you try to look that up in the internet, every single result will lead you to the idea that you need to have a guide or whatever reason to pay in order to do volunteering in here. The English information is HIGHLY distorted to hit foreigners. It is 100% unreliable. Do not attempt to look up for things about southern European countries in English. Most things that can somehow be capitalized on are lies or deceptive.
Okay. Well I've been to plenty of capital and major cities in London and Barcelona is the only place I've ever seen anti tourist stuff around and heard about this in the media. Granted, I've not been to Lisbon.
Random tweet I just came across: https://x.com/Scaife51/status/1811403266531471842?t=4fdIaowFfaHmYv77no51LQ
That's this place: https://www.reddit.com/r/portugal/comments/1e1c4ky/why_albufeira_is_a_british_colony/
Can you realistically believe that one can live in there without being anti-tourist? That's NOT a one off. That's a very common occurrence in the south coast (both Portugal and Spain). It is not a major city or anything like that. Every city down there is currently like that.
I think it's fair to say that football hooliganism is not unique to any particular place, and is a specific and unique problem. I do find football hooligans a nightmare. Is that the same problem as we're discussing with general tourism? I would argue no. Football hooligans are horrible in their own countries too.
That's an absolutely perfect example of what I'm saying. Whose fault is that - the individual who goes to that place, or the local government for approving those businesses to set themselves up on that street? If I lived there I would be furious. Not with the tourist spending money there, but with government for enabling the situation.
I've travelled around Spain and Italy (not Portugal, though I would love to visit one day) and I completely agree that it's a shame when places are taken over by businesses that cater to tourists to the detriment of the authentic local culture. The first place that comes to mind for me is Amalfi in Italy, where this was by far the worst part about my visit there, despite it being an absolutely gorgeous part of the world.
Where we disagree is where the responsibility lies. I do not believe it's the fault of the individual tourist. Local and national governments absolutely have the ability to change the situation. Obviously they don't because tourism brings in so much money. I don't particularly see how accosting and blaming individuals who have come to visit achieves anything or places blame on the people whose literal job it is to regulate these things.
Yes, over-tourism and hooligans are disjoint problems. But if it is so cheap going to a place that you can just grab your fella drunkards and go you end up mixing them both in...weird ways.
Britain is not that rich anymore (and we aren't in 2011 anymore), however, during peak crisis (when the IMF rescued Portugal and almost had to do the same with Spain) we couldn't do much besides accepting anything that was bringing money, no matter how little. For some reason, the brits got used to to go to Algarve as "their" vaction spot, so much that this predates the tourist boom, and at this point in time they just straight up bought everything. You can't say no when your country is near bankrupt.
The 2008 financial crisis was a major turning point for this massified tourism. The "lazy southern people that don't want to work" had to accept any money that tourists could bring and accept any consequences. Partly due to this, there's this culture that tourists are immune to everything. If you think that hooligans are bad in a place with functioning cops, imagine them in a place that, at most, says "please don't do that" and lets you go, every single time. Even the Germans, which generally are strict rule followers, stop having any regard for simple laws.
That very same "lazy southern people that don't want to work" stereotype also got many people considering the northern Europeans to be entitled assholes. Not individually. There's not all that much xenophobia when dealing with individuals 1:1, but when considering them as a group of people, there's a lot of resentment. Germany, the UK and France being in crisis and facing the same problems we faced is giving some sweet sensation to a lot of people.
There's also the cultural idea that "when you're not in your town, you behave", even internally. People from Oporto have the same prejudice towards Lisbon people. "They come here and act like this is their place, chanting and whatever, twats" goes Portuguese to Portuguese, no need to add foreigners for that attitude to be a thing.
There's enough context to everything to write quite a few books. Nothing in these interactions are as simple as "people are annoyed at competition in their markets so they're pointing water guns".
There was the time period I just described where the governments could not have a say towards that + tragedy of commons. Every local government wants to have "the best behaved and richest tourists" so a race to the bottom it goes. Now it is a complete mess to fix the situation, especially since the Portuguese no longer own those places.
As a local government you can't go against the majority of your people, and the majority of people in Algarve are Brits and French. They own entire regions. Years and years of this environment cause that. Even in the Lisbon region, plenty of tourists buy properties because "wow, such nice weather, everything cheap", which they end up treating as investment because why wouldn't them?
There was this particularly damning "golden visa" scheme during the IMF days where you'd get Portuguese citizenship and a myriad of rights if you invested 250k (?) in real estate. A whole lot of people started doing investment tourism due to that and they're totally capitalizing on that.
The way I see it, there are two major classes of tourist in here. The rich fellas which bought the entire property market, with the richest of them tanking our water supplies with their golf courts and lobbying against any changes. And the bingo-card tourist which sees "50€ on Ryanair, nice! Honey, let's go to Portugal, it is a place in Spain that has some pubs just like home". You have a few other classes like the guys that actually enjoy discovering cultures and whatnot, but my personal experience tells me that there aren't all that many like that even though all of them will say that they're doing just that.
Now, none of this wall of text pointed at "firing water at people" as a solution; it just pointed a good deal of the context why other solutions are near impossible. However, in a way dissimilar to Portugal, Catalonia actually is a powerhouse. They can actually just limit the amount of people going there and succeed that way. But 1) business travellers are barely distinguishable from tourists 2) Madrid is a pain.
The whole point is that this is a very hard to solve mess. Most people don't know these details; they merely know that we have a "too many tourists; go away" attitude; they could be halfway decent and just respect it, unless they have some particular interest in the country. There's a trivial way to distinguish. We actually love to see people trying to speak Portuguese; even if they utterly fail; because this is enough to distinguish them from the 99%. This is how desperate we are for people that actually value anything in Portugal but the pictures and weather.
I'll just start by saying I found your comment very interesting and insightful and I've learned a lot about the local challenges so thank you for taking the time to educate me. I still stand by my core argument but I appreciate your account and it was an interesting read.
What I would add is that I think it's very easy to fall into the trap of judging all tourists by the loud ones. The vast majority are just trying to get some time away and enjoy some time abroad and do so respectfully. I'd respectfully disagree that they're the minority. Yeah, certain places get more tourists because the flights are cheap. Well, times are tough and I think less well-off people also deserve a holiday. It's not really their fault if some places are more affordable than others.
Vacant holiday homes is a massive problem here as well, especially in regions like Cornwall and the Lake District. And also London, where the ultra wealthy of the world essentially use the city as a bank account to store their wealth. Personally I'm in favour of taxing the hell out them to disincentivise the practice and bring down house prices for genuine residents and families. But much like the tourism situation we've been discussing, it's such a huge source of income for the country that I don't envision this really happening. As much as I'd like it to.
It's the job of politicians to resolve the systemic issues (though I don't pretend to know how). If they don't have a strong enough mandate to do so then, well, that's democracy isn't it? I say this as someone who about a week ago won the first vote of their adult voting life after a decade and a half living under a conservative government who I can't stand. By all means campaign and protest to support your cause for the next vote, but I continue to condemn the type of protest shown in the original post. I don't think it's right to form a mob around perceived-foreigners, chant at them and spray water at them - which is my core point I wanted to originally make.
Then you've never interacted with the locals in these other places. Having grown up in a vacation town, I can tell you right now that the only difference here is that the people with water guns have hit their breaking points.
Have you ever seen the movie Jaws? There's a small throwaway bit in there where the wife of the chief of police is asking a friend of hers when she gets to be an islander (because the family had recently moved to the island from New York), and her friend responds, "Never. If you weren't born here, then you're not an islander." Having grown up near where that movie was made, that's 100% accurate to the local sentiment. On that island, they call people who move there "wash ashores" because they feel that they washed up like the flotsam and jetsam on the beach. In my town, we called the rich people who would come up to vacation in their lavish summer homes "snowbirds" because they migrated at the same time as the birds and couldn't handle the winter weather.
The most consistent thing I've found about tourist areas is the negative impact the industry has on the area for locals and the hatred locals feel towards the tourists.
Whether these people are acting rightly or wrongly, they're trying to hit the government and businesses where it hurts most - their profits - because it's the only way they'll ever care about the local problems.
Honestly - I'm quite a well travelled person and Barcelona is absolutely notorious for these groups. They are famous for it. So I stand by what I said. I'm from London and now live in a tourist heavy seaside town. I get it. But it doesn't justify assaulting people.