• Echo Dot
    link
    fedilink
    4
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    No it’s not. But it’s also not really related to anything that’s actually the problem or remotely relevant.

    I agree with their objectives in the broad strokes, I just question their methods. Every time they are reported about, it’s always because they’ve done something strange and irritating to the general population. They’re not targeting big businesses, or airports, or car production plants, which you would have thought they would have done. No, they’re always throwing paint on something.

    It’s weird and pointless.

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        To make what happen. What is “it”?

        I simply object to strawman arguments suggesting that any course of action is a good course of action. No it’s not, it’s stupid if it’s stupid. It doesn’t matter how worthy the cause is. Oh how self-righteous you feel about it.

        Messing around with people’s lives doesn’t help anyone, it doesn’t help the cause, it doesn’t help spread the message, all it does is make people hate you. I object to them turning climate activism into some kind of publicity stunt. Publicity stunts require a purpose, these don’t have one, they are simply causing trouble for the sake of it. They know that none of what they are doing will have any impact because they’re not targeting anyone, anything, or any entity that has anything to do with the claimate crisis.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          “it” being phasing out oil, and ending excess consumption, i tought it was obvious.

          ruining some shitty piece of paper isnt messing with peoples lives nearly as much as climate change is. for some reason people seem to be more defensive of the piece of paper.

          if you hate their means of raising awareness, you should have a better means instead of just defending the status quo.