• @disguy_ovahea
    link
    106
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    So the meme is in agreement that defacing Stonehenge as a protest was pointless?

    There are ways to get attention for a cause without defacing one of the seven wonders of the world. Next time spray that cornstarch in BP’s corporate parking lot.

      • @disguy_ovahea
        link
        26
        edit-2
        21 days ago

        I saw it. That implies that spraying cornstarch won’t change anything. Think about it.

        • @ameancow
          link
          58
          edit-2
          21 days ago

          THEN WHAT FUCKING WILL CHANGE ANYTHING

          Because this is the only thing that gets people like you to even talk about this.

          edit: I want to be clear that I don’t care if it’s rude or uncivil to talk to people about this like this, I will do it again and again and again and I support efforts to be annoying about it, because at this point it’s all we have left to maybe, potentially, get enough people angry enough that someone, somewhere does something. Anything

          You’re all making your frowny faces and saying “This is counter-productive” and you’re simply not getting it.

          If through some magical means we were to learn that nuking Manhattan would somehow lower global temperatures, then we would need to do that, just up and vaporize 1.6 million people. It would STILL be the ethically superior action to take if it magically worked. Because in the next century billions of people may die.

          If we learned that filling the Grand Canyon with concrete would get companies to stop producing carbon waste and get people to accept inconveniences like electric cars and paper straws without whinging like a wounded toddler, then yes, line up those cement mixers.

          When it comes to the trolly problem, you’re all not even looking at the right tracks if you’re so upset about incivility or annoyances when it comes to climate activism. If anyone is left to do it, one day they will erect statues of these kids throwing soup at paintings and coloring rocks.

          • @someacnt_
            link
            221 days ago

            I know this is nitpicking but… I’d say the biggest issue with electric car now is the pricing. What do you think poor people should do?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1321 days ago

              We should ride bicycles and public transit, and the government should be investing in rail and walkability for us

              • @someacnt_
                link
                821 days ago

                Exactly what I thought, we need less cars.

              • @ameancow
                link
                120 days ago

                If you make a tax-deductible donation to your local transit authority (check your state if it’s deductible) then the government is basically paying more for mass transportation than they had budgeted. Our taxes are one of our most powerful tools in the US for deciding what gets funded and nobody uses that tool. Likely because it’s hard enough to stay fed than donate sums of cash to already-functioning institutions, but imagine if enough people just did this a little.

            • @ameancow
              link
              021 days ago

              What do you think poor people should do?

              They should throw their wooden shoes into the cogs of the windmills.

            • @ameancow
              link
              2921 days ago

              Not clicking, not looking, this isn’t even about you, this is bigger than you. Every individual needs to get a lot better about getting their head out of their own ass.

              • @disguy_ovahea
                link
                -321 days ago

                You wrote “people like you” referring to me. Consider this lesson one in becoming compelling: know your audience.

                • @ameancow
                  link
                  20
                  edit-2
                  21 days ago

                  Yeah, people like you, who have all the power to say something supportive of those doing anything, no matter how feeble, and instead employ people’s worse emotions against something you find annoying. I stand by it. I don’t care who you are or what your ideals are, you made a choice here to push back on people who are trying to save our lives. If you don’t like the methodology, fine. Who cares. All you do by ranting about it is give ammunition to those who would still deny there is even a problem, as we all slowly boil to death.

                  At least the rocks will be clean, right?

                • @SquirtleHermit
                  link
                  1621 days ago

                  This comment is beautiful. It manages to admonish another for a concept it in of itself can not grasp.

          • MudMan
            link
            fedilink
            021 days ago

            This is such a clarifying post.

            It’s not about being useful, it’s about feeling useful. It’s about the impotent frustration of feeling you’re not having an impact being channeled through a media stunt whether or not it in fact changes anything, or even if it makes things worse.

            That is what’s going on here, I think. Strategic thinking about this is slow and involves a long road and political concessions and compromises and getting involved hands-on with very out-of-sight things for a long time. This takes a second and it makes it to the news, so it feels like something got done, even if it wasn’t the case.

            And that’s 21st century activism in a nutshell, basically.

          • @disguy_ovahea
            link
            12
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            That’s the implication of the meme.

            I think there are better ways to bring attention to the concerns of climate change than defacing Stonehenge.

            • KubeRoot
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1021 days ago

              The implication of the meme is that the people talking about how stupid the protests are are actually blind to the very real climate change happening. They might know about it, but they don’t really comprehend that defacing the Stonehenge is nothing compared to it being completely underwater, alongside the whole area.

              Whether the comic is right or wrong is another thing, and the other guy arguing in bad faith is a cunt, but I strongly believe that’s what the comic is meant to portray.

              • @disguy_ovahea
                link
                47
                edit-2
                21 days ago

                It’s really cool how you decide the opinions and stance of others based on your own opinions. I’m sure you’re always right too.

                I protested with BLM in Yonkers in June of 2020, but I’m sure you’re usually 100% correct otherwise.

          • Blastboom Strice
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            Very unrelated, but I noticed you have a downvote, visible. Is this possible on this instance? Has something changed or is it a bug? Other posts/comments dont seem to have downvotes, but here I can see that the post and some comments have a single downvote. Do you have any clue? I think only your comments and the post have a downvote, could it be the person you talked to somehow managed to get their downvotes to show?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              321 days ago

              Downvotes being visible is possible throughout lemmy because the voting is federated and therefore public. Whether downvotes show depends on whatever frontend you’re using, so your mobile app or your instance’s web view. There has recently been an update that changed how votes are displayed, so it’s possible your instance has updated to that.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              121 days ago

              Sorry I don’t I’m barely techy I didnt even know there was a way to block down votes.

              • Blastboom Strice
                link
                fedilink
                121 days ago

                Oh its oke (the instance decides if the downvotes are visible and since this post is on an instance that doesnt show downvotes separately I found it weird that I saw a visible single downvote both on the post and your comments.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          521 days ago

          I think the wider point is that people will remain ignorant, even when they’ve irrefutably been proven wrong.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12
        edit-2
        21 days ago

        I think they totally got that, and their point was painting Stonehenge didn’t help stop climate change, as evidenced in the last panel.

      • @Crampon
        link
        120 days ago

        He built a man out of straws.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      80
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      Like the 3 private jets that were vandalized with orange paint in London. That’s the kind of thing I can support, it makes headlines, it grounds the planes reducing emissions, and it specifically targets those who are causing the most harm.

    • @ameancow
      link
      6621 days ago

      So the meme is in agreement that defacing Stonehenge as a protest was pointless?

      It was as pointless as everything else, that’s why they did it, it’s screaming into the void to get attention.

      There are ways to get attention for a cause without defacing one of the seven wonders of the world

      Are there though? I’m old enough to remember this has gone on for decades without anyone doing anything of significance and now we’re at the actual edge of global catastrophe and STILL people are like “hmn, those kids should be recycling.” Bruh, you and so many people have no idea how many lives are going to be lost in the next century while every milquetoast liberal and conservative in the developed world roll their eyes and get pissed at slight annoyances like… checks notes colored corn starch on rocks you will never visit.

      It’s like trying to shake someone in a dream to get them to pay attention. And the more you scream and hit them, the more they look ahead like zombies.

      They HAVE sprayed BP’s factories and lots and machines, they have sabotaged equipment and chained themselves to machines and have caused material harm to companies like BP, but that doesn’t get any fucking coverage because media doesn’t want to encourage “violent activism” for fear of turning away viewers like YOU who are annoyed by such things.

      • @disguy_ovahea
        link
        5
        edit-2
        21 days ago

        You don’t have to sell me on climate change protests. I’ve attended a few myself.

        I’m criticizing the delivery, not the message. The majority of people that heard that protest were those who travelled from around the world to see Stonehenge. Their plans were ruined, and they don’t care any more about climate change than they did that morning. Some may even resent the protesters.

        Performative radicalism is only compelling to those already behind a cause. It’s discrediting to everyone else, who should be your target audience.

        • @ameancow
          link
          2421 days ago

          I’m criticizing the delivery, not the message.

          I don’t care fucking one bit. It’s the same shit.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1421 days ago

            I’m criticizing the delivery, not the message.

            That’s the same argument white liberals used during the civil Rights movement.

          • @disguy_ovahea
            link
            0
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            Is it? I used to bring literature to protests, now I bring QR codes. I’ve personally educated hundreds, if not thousands on initiatives over the years. That drives more change than ruining a family trip. Being compelling has been more successful than being loud in my experience.

            • @MiltownClowns
              link
              1721 days ago

              I’ve heard of them. I’ve never heard of you. Your experience is insufficient data to be making this grandiose of a statement.

              • @disguy_ovahea
                link
                4
                edit-2
                21 days ago

                I advocate for the cause I protest, not myself. How many people do you think will be compelled to care or learn more about climate change after this protest? How many people’s plans to see Stonehenge were ruined, leading to resentment of the cause?

                Activism isn’t like Trump’s campaign. Bad press is in fact, bad press.

                • @MiltownClowns
                  link
                  1421 days ago

                  They have compelled more discussion in this single thread than you have with your whole life. Your moral grandstanding is nice. Effective tactics are nicer.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                321 days ago

                I’ve heard of them. I’ve never heard of you.

                Not exactly a good thing… One of the problems with making a lot of noise is drowning out the voices of others on the same side.

                Political capital is a thing, utilizing it in a protest that doesn’t really accomplish anything but turning public sentiment against your cause is kinda a dumb way to spend it.

                • @MiltownClowns
                  link
                  621 days ago

                  You say they’re spending political capital. I say they’re building political capital. They’re creating a fuss. They’re creating noise, which can then be turned into action. What are you doing?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -921 days ago

            This argument is pointless. Neither of you is right. Arguing for or against optics is pointless.

        • @Passerby6497
          link
          English
          21
          edit-2
          21 days ago

          I’m criticizing the delivery, not the message.The majority of people that heard that protest were those who travelled from around the world to see Stonehenge. Their plans were ruined, and they don’t care any more about climate change than they did that morning. Some may even resent the protesters.

          "You know, I don’t disagree that the coloreds should have more rights, but did they really need to sit at the lunch counter all day? I couldn’t sit at the counter and it made my lunch take so much longer. Really inconvenient to everyone trying to get some food.

          I just wished they’d go about it differently. They’re liable to make people even less accepting of them if they keep pulling stunts like that."

          I hope you know that’s what you sound like. Like, read the first paragraph of MLK Jr’s Letter from Birmingham Jail and you’ll see your argument in the “white moderate”:

          I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            221 days ago

            Those people were protesting that they weren’t allowed to sit at lunch counters. These people are not protesting the color of Stonehenge.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2121 days ago

          The majority of people that heard that protest were those who travelled from around the world to see Stonehenge.

          I didn’t travel to see Stonehenge and I’m hearing about it. So is everyone in this thread.

          Their plans were ruined

          And I see that now that the stones have been shown to be undamaged the dismissal of the protest is pivoting to “the poor people taking recreational flights have had their entire trip ruined!!!”

          If people become less likely to take unnecessary flights because protestors might “ruin their trip” I would consider that an absolute win.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -721 days ago

          This argument is pointless. Neither of you is right. Arguing for or against optics is pointless.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        321 days ago

        It was as pointless as everything else, that’s why they did it, it’s screaming into the void to get attention.

        It’s not just pointless, it’s potentially damaging to the cause. I don’t mind if someone rubs against the grain of public sentiment for a cause, so long as the way they do it actually accomplishes a goal.

        Are there though? I’m old enough to remember this has gone on for decades without anyone doing anything of significance and now we’re at the actual edge of global catastrophe and STILL people are like “hmn, those kids should be recycling.”

        And how does cornstarching rocks, or defacing art make any kind of difference? Is there any possible outcome that benefits the cause? It seems like the only thing this accomplishes is drowning out any other news about climate change for 2 to 3 weeks.

        Bruh, you and so many people have no idea how many lives are going to be lost in the next century while every milquetoast liberal and conservative in the developed world roll their eyes and get pissed at slight annoyances like… checks notes colored corn starch on rocks you will never visit.

        Just because someone disagrees with you on how to spend the very limited amount of political capital accumulated for climate change, does not mean they are less informed on the subject than you.

        I don’t give a fuck about Stonehenge, but it’s stupid to believe that others do not. It’s also pretty stupid to ignore concepts like blowback and public sentiment.

        They HAVE sprayed BP’s factories and lots and machines, they have sabotaged equipment and chained themselves to machines and have caused material harm to companies like BP, but that doesn’t get any fucking coverage because media doesn’t want to encourage “violent activism” for fear of turning away viewers like YOU who are annoyed by such things.

        Lol, they arent afraid of turning away viewers, they are worried about turning away advertisers. They are part of the capital class preserving the fossil fuel industry. Of course they don’t want to spread violent activism. They would much rather all climate activists display protest that they can utilize to turn the public against the cause.

        Which begs the question, why are these groups providing the media with ineffective protests that turn public opinion against the cause and garter a ton of negative press in the first place?

        • @ameancow
          link
          10
          edit-2
          21 days ago

          Glad you’re here to set us all right. Surely we’ll all be okay as long as people are teaching us to be civil and not… harm the cause. God forbid the cause be harmed.

          I’m done, a lot of us are. Good luck.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            421 days ago

            Surely we’ll all be okay as long as people are teaching us to be civil and not… harm the cause.

            I never claimed that I wanted people to remain “civil”, you can attack that strawman as you wish.

            I don’t mind people engaging in violent disobedience or civil disobedience, every MLK needs a Malcom X. However, I just don’t see the benefit in this particular situation. If you are going to do something that could potentially harm public sentiment you should at least be doing something that materially changes things for the positive.

            I’m done, a lot of us are. Good luck.

            Get off your high horse, were all dealing with the same problem here. Just because someone differs in opinion on how political capital should be spent, it doesn’t mean your perspective has a monopoly on morality or anything.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              721 days ago

              You’re lost. Move on. The only person on a high horse here is you telling people that they’re protesting wrong.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                421 days ago

                Sorry for believing a protest should help your cause more than it harms it?

                You do know this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress, right?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          221 days ago

          Even bad press is still press? I don’t have an opinion on Stonehenge yet; I’m pretty sure the art they “defaced” was only the protective casing; and I haven’t researched them enough to form a true opinion of my own

          But now I’m curious as to whether (or not) “I think” their motives are “ignorant” or somehow “nefarious” at times. I’ve seen them in the news for a while now, and I haven’t always agreed with their course of action… sometimes I believe it to be too impulsive. But they’re still doing it. They’ve forced a discussion that keeps the issue in the forefront, and now it has me wanting to look-into their situation more. And I do believe-in what they’re advocating, even if I’m not sure it’s the “correct” way to do it

          Yet here we are, talking about it. “There’s no such thing as ‘Bad Press’”, I guess? Are they right?.. maybe. Are they detracting from the plight?.. also, maybe. Am I sure of my opinion of their protests?.. no, not really. Seems like something I’ll have to read more about.

          So maybe, mission accomplished (in-progress)? Idk, but I see the merit regardless of their actions

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            621 days ago

            Stonehenge wasn’t harmed. The pigment is water soluble, it washes off with the rain. No chemical damage.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            321 days ago

            Yet here we are, talking about it. “There’s no such thing as ‘Bad Press’”, I guess? Are they right?.. maybe. Are they detracting from the plight?.. also, maybe. Am I sure of my opinion of their protests?.. no, not really.

            Right, but we are talking about it knowing the consequences of not enacting changes. In the US fox news is watched by something like 40% of active voters. Meaning a significant portion of voters actively distrust news about climate change, another significant portion do not think about it on a day to day basis.

            Giving the news network ammunition like this only further entrenches these audiences in anti climate change reactions.

            Seems like something I’ll have to read more about.

            Would knowing that this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress that lives in a 33m dollar home affect your opinion?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              321 days ago

              I’ve seen you mention the oil heiress thing a couple of times. The heiress in question is Aileen Getty. She helped found the Climate Emergency Fund which is basically used to fund nonviolent climate protests like these.

              The emergency climate fund also supported the Dutch protests against the fossil fuel industry that ended with the Dutch government proceeding with a plan to end fossil fuel subsidies.

              The emergency climate fund has had some success against the fossil fuel industry, so I don’t think there is any evidence that this thing is a psyop to get public opinion to be against climate protesters.

              It’s very possible that Aileen Getty actually feels bad about how her family gained its fortune, and she is trying to reverse the damage by donating to these causes. If this was a fossil fuel industry psyop, they would do a much better job at hiding who was funding it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      47
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      So the meme is in agreement that defacing Stonehenge as a protest was pointless?

      The meme is saying you’re getting angry about the wrong thing.

      • @scrion
        link
        621 days ago

        You can be angry about both things, the world isn’t black and white. Leave the fucking stones alone and blow up corporate headquarters for all I care.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1521 days ago

          You can be angry about both things

          And yet here you are being angry about the stones. How far back in your comment history would I have to look to find you being angry about climate change?

        • @MiltownClowns
          link
          6
          edit-2
          21 days ago

          Stop assaulting rocks with corn startch and be more like Timothy McVeigh

          Y’all are nuts.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            021 days ago

            Does the corporate HQ have a daycare like McVeigh’s target did? At this point climate motivated bombings are more like French resistance bombings; there are no good guys in war.

      • @disguy_ovahea
        link
        5
        edit-2
        21 days ago

        I’m not angry. I’m disappointed by performative radicalism of an important cause. It doesn’t help the message as much as it strokes the egos of those involved, and will likely be discrediting to those we need to reach.

          • @disguy_ovahea
            link
            1
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            Debating the method of the performance is not the same as compelling people to learn about climate change and join protests. If anything, it has the opposite effect. It’s only compelling to those already in the fold, and therefore counterproductive to the cause.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1121 days ago

              It’s also leading to discussions between those complaining about and those “already in the fold”, facilitating the spread of information.

            • @Madison420
              link
              421 days ago

              It is though. We’re talking about it now, but responding your disproving your own theory.

                • Instigate
                  link
                  fedilink
                  221 days ago

                  Conversations on a public platform aren’t just for those who speak; they’re also for those who listen. Many people are simply reading these exchanges without engaging in them. I think this discourse is most valuable for them, far more valuable than for someone whose opinion is so ingrained that they’re the one arguing about it.

                • @Madison420
                  link
                  121 days ago

                  Probably not or there wouldn’t be discussion.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      3821 days ago

      Now, I am not the biggest fan of those kinds of actions, because they are indeed exploited heavily by the burgeois press, but let’s talk about attention. I remember there being at least two paint defacings and damaging of private jets here in Germany in 2023 by similar groups. There was next to no press about it - and if you search for it today, it is genuinely hard to find the articles that even mention them, one I found even focusing on the legal questions of insurance, instead of writing about the broader issues at all:

      https://www.t-online.de/region/hamburg/id_100188204/letzte-generation-farbattacke-auf-sylter-privatjet-so-hoch-ist-der-schaden.html https://www.aerotelegraph.com/wer-zahlt-bei-einem-farbanschlag-auf-ein-privatflugzeug

      So, you would be surprised - actions that target more “deserving” targets often just… aren’t talked about at all, or very little, small footnotes. This at least starts debates, which cannot be denied.

      • @disguy_ovahea
        link
        1121 days ago

        In the same way, give this a year. Do you think it would be referred to as a “great point in addressing climate change,” or “those kids that defaced Stonehenge?”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1721 days ago

          It might just also be talked about as “that event everyone got angry about because of false reporting”, or “that event where I argued with some people online, and I realised they made better points than I thought”, or “that event that made me think about what actions would have been better”. There is more than the main narrative, and more than just a single engagement with it if there’s discussion happening.

          So, yeah, it will create a lot of hostility, but maybe even a possibility to recontextualise that hostility for some people.

          But not to say you don’t have any point at all - it’s true that it can make some things harder to properly talk about, makes it all the more important to oppose the main narrative whenever possible and not feed into it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      3721 days ago

      Quite literally the opposite, no one will remember that Stonehenge was defaced with cornflour, but we will see and remember climate change.

      That’s just a meme about the fake outrage used as a diversion, instead of the real issue and why people resort to defacing art and monuments for their cause to be in focus.

      Any publicity is good publicity.

    • @Madison420
      link
      3121 days ago

      It’s not at all one of the seven wonders of the world, is not even the coolest henge in England and like maybe 5 top five in Europe. It’s just famous because it was restored well within your parents lifetime for most of us.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2621 days ago

      Or its a representation of what the future looks like if we keep fighting the people who fight for all of us.

      • @disguy_ovahea
        link
        2
        edit-2
        21 days ago

        I’m not fighting protesters, I am one. I’m suggesting these protesters do a better job of it.

        Radicalism is always discredited by everyone on the outside of a cause, and those are the people you need to reach.

          • @disguy_ovahea
            link
            3
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            Radicalism is mostly supported by those who already support a cause. People who are unaware of a cause, or not in support will typically dismiss the message of a radical performance and focus on rejecting the behavior. The message gets lost, and the only people that cheer are already on your side.

            No one is unaware of climate change as a topic. The rate, severity, and urgency of climate change are what gets consistently misrepresented and suppressed. Those are the points that need to be communicated far and wide, and I don’t see how painting Stonehenge compels anyone to learn more about it or join future protests.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              221 days ago

              I see what you mean. I agree people need much more tangible details about how climate change is already effecting them and will affect us in the future. As well as the sheer out of proportion footprint of for profit industry.

              But even if you where to communicate the details, people would still need to care to listen. The most effective path is probably a bit of both, radical action to turn heads but also have those actions carrying a more directly explicit message other then “acknowledge us” .

              • @disguy_ovahea
                link
                1
                edit-2
                21 days ago

                The right approach for more extreme activism should at least be directly related to the awareness. Another user pointed out the jet painting. It’s a great example. Many people are not aware of the massive carbon emissions from private jet owners. It made global headlines, drove awareness of a specific part of the problem, and even briefly impacted emissions by grounding jets.

                https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/20/activists-spray-planes-with-paint-at-uk-airfield-where-taylor-swift-jet-landed

                Stonehenge has nothing to do with climate change. The visitors that that day may even be soured on the topic due to the protest’s impact on their plans. It accomplished nothing but momentary infamy, and is ultimately discrediting to the cause.

                I attend more organized protests. I always bring materials for education. It’s always a good idea to supply literature or QR codes to resources to help inform interested passers-by.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  421 days ago

                  Maybe it drove headlines where you are but for me its a first i hear of it.

                  Yet everyone is talking about Stonehenge.

                  100% agree though activism needs more clear messaging.

          • Five
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -121 days ago

            @disguy_ovahea has no idea what he’s talking about. He apparently attended a couple of protests and thinks he’s now an expert on social change.

            A horse race has about as much to do with women’s right to vote as Stonehenge does with climate change, but that didn’t stop Emily Davison’s direct action at the 1913 Epsom Derby from being a watershed moment in the struggle for women’s suffrage.

    • @dejected_warp_core
      link
      1821 days ago

      I think the punchline goes multiple ways at once: “the protesters were stupid thinking this would help”, “the protesters were stupid in how they tried to protest”, and “everyone back then was stupid because it’s Waterworld now.”

      • Cethin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        721 days ago

        My understanding was more: people are stupid for buying the media’s narrative despite the world being destroyed by what the protest was trying to tell us about, including the thing these people are supposedly upset about protecting.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1121 days ago

      See, I’m reading it as saying that even with ‘drastic’ action like defacing a tourist attraction, governments just don’t care to put any serious thought into the climate change problem. They’ll put the blame on protestors for making us think for a minute and then go about their way until the world is uninhabitable.

      But that’s okay, because for a moment they created a lot of shareholder value in their district.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1120 days ago

      nice whataboutism, “they should do this instead”. oh they do, but you don’t care when they do.

      the delivery didn’t deface anything, if you want to focus on the delivery and once again ignore the message at least be honest. willing or not, messages like this do BP bidding

  • @ChillPenguin
    link
    63
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    Won’t you just think of the shareholders? /s

  • MudMan
    link
    fedilink
    37
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    Man, the way this channels a mix of “it is the children who are wrong” and sheer impotence is hitting me hard. I mean, it really explains so much about modern activism.

    • @disguy_ovahea
      link
      18
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      I attended my first protest thirty years ago. Modern activists need to be more clever. Learn the law so you know how to circumvent it. Turning things up to 11 just gets you discredited as “radicals” in the media. It’s a fruitless attempt at awareness that will just get you charged.

      • @Cobrachicken
        link
        2821 days ago

        How old were you back then? These kids awake to a world fucked up by the older generation. They try to take every step that comes to their mind to steer away from desaster. What is your personal input in that task? Criticism. Well done. Go out and teach them, if you’re so clever.

        • @disguy_ovahea
          link
          1921 days ago

          I do. When I attend a protest, I share my knowledge and experience. First rule is keep it safe. Second is keep it legal. Third is keep it together. Fourth is keep it heard.

          The key to a successful protest is knowing the law and planning around it before organizing.

          • Match!!
            link
            fedilink
            English
            221 days ago

            Have you successfully protested before, and can you link me to such a success?

            • @disguy_ovahea
              link
              3
              edit-2
              21 days ago

              Many times. I determine success as being heard without being hurt. Protesters shouldn’t be injured or prosecuted if they’re following the law. Wrongful arrests happen when officers want to end a protest, but those charges are easily dropped. I’ve never experienced that personally, but some of my friends were charged at Occupy in 2011.

              • Match!!
                link
                fedilink
                English
                421 days ago

                In that case, perhaps we have different metrics for success

            • MudMan
              link
              fedilink
              121 days ago

              Oooh, oooh, I got one.

              I went to multiple protests after the Iraq war and got my Iraq war-supporting government to immediately plummet in support and lose the next election. It was nice. No harmed irreplaceable monuments that I remember. The marches I attended were entirely peaceful, as well.

        • MudMan
          link
          fedilink
          1521 days ago

          Oh, spare me that rhetroric. Protestors in the 90s and especially the 2000s felt just as disenfranchised. That’s how you end up protesting in the first place. And those were the nice ones. The stories my parents could tell you about the 60s and 70s.

          It’s not like “don’t be an idiot” is a struggle only now. I was in protests back in a different millenium where the smart ones were already standing in front of cops and bank windows to stop the idiots from throwing rocks at them and spoiling the whole thing.

          The despondent “you just don’t get it” online discourse is pretty new, though.

          • @disguy_ovahea
            link
            5
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            You get it. I saw some bad shit at the Oil Wars and Occupy protests.

            It’s all one action. We need to keep it together for the clarity of message. Even more now in some states where one bad actor won’t just end a protest, but get everyone charged.

            • MudMan
              link
              fedilink
              621 days ago

              And beyond getting charged it’s the optics. I am from a place where you’re less likely to get shot by police and where serious charges are not likely to come from protesting (at least back then, it has gotten worse). But even then the marching orders were that if cops charge or disrupt the protest that’s good optics, if the protestors riot unprompted that’s bad optics, which should be pretty straightforward to understand.

              • @disguy_ovahea
                link
                4
                edit-2
                21 days ago

                Absolutely. The people you need to reach are outside of the movement. Performative radicalism is immediately discredited by your target audience, and only praised by those who are already supporters of the cause.

      • @grue
        link
        English
        2221 days ago

        Turning things up to 11 just gets you discredited as “radicals” in the media.

        Radicals need to exist in order to make the less-radical activists look reasonable by comparison. Otherwise they just get painted as radical no matter how milquetoast their protest is, and the Overton window moves away from their cause.

        • @disguy_ovahea
          link
          5
          edit-2
          21 days ago

          That’s one opinion.

          A protest should be speaking to those outside of the cause. Many see radicals as arrogant performers, only gaining the attention of those already in the fold, and discredited by those outside of the cause. It can drive the people we are trying to reach further from the cause.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            921 days ago

            Many see radicals as arrogant performers,

            And when they complain about it it provides the opportunity for those supporting the cause to explain it to them.

          • @grue
            link
            English
            3
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            First of all, this is great and deserves its own thread.

            Second, there’s a fatal flaw: authoritarians and capitalists (same difference) are predisposed in favor of fascism, and that’s why the behavior of fuckwads like Trump keeps getting free passes and attention. When leftists try the same thing, they get ignored, censored, COINTELPRO’d, or even just straight-up murdered.

            In other words, it’s a good strategy and should work, all things being equal, but all things are not equal and that makes it a high-body-count strategy (even if there’s no better one available).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        421 days ago

        Learn the law so you know how to circumvent it. Turning things up to 11 just gets you discredited as “radicals” in the media. It’s a fruitless attempt at awareness that will just get you charged.

        You do realize that the UK has been illegally criminalizing lawful protests? You do realize that the media does not give a flying fuck about what is legal or illegal or how illegal something is, when painting activists as “radicals” or even worse “terrorists”? In Germany people who glued themselves to the streets were compared to the RAF terrorist organization that planted bombs, abducted and assassinated people, that hijacked planes and committed many armed bank robberies.

        What is legal or not does not matter. What is moral or not does not matter. What is true or not does not matter. You have a far right authoritarian government that subverts the rule of law at every possible moment, aided by a fascist media conglomerate that will spread dramatized desinformation against any progressive cause while covering up the very real crimes of the government and aligned groups.

        • @disguy_ovahea
          link
          220 days ago

          I’ve read that protesters were getting harassed and arrested in the UK, but I honestly didn’t know it was that bad. I’m so sorry to hear that. Thank you for informing me. That’s very important context. It completely changes the situation if you’re facing criminal charges regardless of your actions.

    • Poplar?OP
      link
      English
      121 days ago

      Can you explain what you mean by impotence here?

      • MudMan
        link
        fedilink
        221 days ago

        The dictionary definition I was going for is: “The quality or condition of being impotent; lack of strength or power”.

        • Poplar?OP
          link
          121 days ago

          Thanks, got that part. I meant more like, why do you say that? Because lacking power the activists are resorting to spraying monuments?

          • MudMan
            link
            fedilink
            221 days ago

            Oh. No, I meant the strip, not the activists. The implication is that we’re all so dumb that we end up underwater but we’re still complaining about how the activists were assholes. For the joke to work, the stunt itself needs to be pointless. If the stunt was indeed to “provoke action against climate change” the strip would make no sense. The premise of the joke requires the action it’s defending to be useless.

            So yeah, to me this transmits that a) the author thinks the action itself did not work and was not going to work in the first place, and b) the author thinks we’re getting angry about it instead of taking action against climate change because we’re dumb and we don’t get it, so the action was fine, it’s our fault.

            It’s the children who are wrong, but also we’re entirely powerless, but it’s because everybody is stupid except for us, only the activism is to make everybody else stop being stupid only it can’t work becasue of how stupid you all are. Impotence and Skinner-esque arrogance for a tasty mix of surreal kafkaesque self-contradiction.

  • @perviouslyiner
    link
    3521 days ago

    For reference, Stonehenge is currently about 100 metres above what the UK considers to be mean sea level.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    30
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    The only protests I agree with are the ones that don’t bother me, are out my way, and have no impact on actually changing things. Also any form of action from a protest should be stopped by the police.

  • Ragdoll X
    link
    28
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    made climate activists look stupid for decades to come over some nonsensical and ineffective attention grab

    didn’t stop climate change

    Yeah, seems about right.

    They had the right idea when they spray painted those private jets. IDK what they were thinking with the Stonehenge stunt.

      • Ragdoll X
        link
        121 days ago

        The Stonehenge stunt was an ineffective attention grab. Vandalizing the private jets was an effective attention grab.

        Like if some Just Stop Oil activist took a shit in the middle of a busy NY street that would get them a lot of attention, but it wouldn’t be even remotely positive or effective in any way.

        They should stick to vandalizing the property of the biggest culprits of climate change. I and most other leftists can get behind that, and it actually puts a spotlight on the people causing the problem. The Stonehenge stunt just comes off as a petty attack on the public who has little to no say on climate issues.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          921 days ago

          I didn’t hear about the vandalizing of private jets until people were complaining about stone henge. Considering they did not damage stone henge in any way this does seem like a much more effective way of bringing attention to the issue.

          • Ragdoll X
            link
            0
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            I didn’t hear about the vandalizing of private jets until people were complaining about stone henge.

            It’d be a bit odd if you had heard about the jets before the Stonehenge stunt since they vandalized the jets one day after Stonehenge. I heard about each of them on the day they happened as I was listening to the news.

            this does seem like a much more effective way of bringing attention to the issue.

            Even most leftists didn’t support the Stonehenge stunt while the majority of comments and posts I’ve seen on the vandalism of the jets was positive. The majority of the public has grievances towards private jets, their pollution and who’s using them, and how they should be taxed. You’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks Stonehenge is bad or that vandalizing it is good.

            This only serves to make them and other climate activists look like petty fools, besides creating infighting on the left. Nearly everyone already knows about climate change and has an opinion on it, and the Stonehenge stunt does nothing to move the public to our side or make Just Stop Oil look good.

        • @gmtom
          link
          221 days ago

          What makes the jets effective but stone henge not?

          Seriously what effects have the jetshave vs stone henge? Did it rally a bunch of people to the cause? Did it make the fossil field companies rethink their ways? Convince the MPs to stop oil investment? Make the owners of those jets not want to fly them?

          • MudMan
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            Did the other thing achieve any of that?

            I’ll say the jets were effective in that I don’t like the jets while I am primed to try to physically stop you from doing the other thing if you try it in front of me. And I already agree with the underlying point already, so imagine how the normies that don’t think about this at all feel.

            “Ah, a cartoonish self-parody of activists defacing a monument I’ve spent my entire life feeling a sense of kinship with, I feel compelled to rethink my stance on this dry, complex political issue”. That’s a bold pitch for a PR stunt.

            • @gmtom
              link
              120 days ago

              No, but I, nor anyone else claimed they were going to.

              The other commentor said the jet protests were effective whereas stonehenge was not. So I’m just asking what effect it had? Because at least the Stonehenge protest was big news, which was the whole point of the protest.

              • MudMan
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                20 days ago

                Oh, is it? Man, this is such a Rorschach test of a thread.

                Is the point of a protest to be in the news? I guess the clout economy has rotten our brains after all.

                I mean, yeah, you can make news by acting like an idiot, in that the people that oppose your cause will thoroughly cover it. It’s not hard to be in the news with a protest, as long as you don’t care why you’re news. Stage a mass murder of puppies to protest against the lack of gun control and I guarantee you’ll get a spot in Fox News every day for a year, very much accompanied of a pro-gun lobbyist commenting the footage.

                That may be the core of the confusion here. I’m saying that turning climate change activism into the puppy murder cause is not an effective way to curb climate change. I’m saying that feeling powerless doesn’t make it any more effective at curbing climate change just because it gets news coverage.

                It’s not making anybody aware of the issue who already isn’t, because everybody is already aware of the issue. It’s not explaining anything about the issue to anybody, because all we’re talking about here is the stupid stunt. It doesn’t convince anybody who was neutral or hostile to the cause because they came off as complete idiots at best, malevolent assholes at worst.

                So I guess my answer to your question is that even if the jet thing did nothing it still was more effective than this. Because it’s not about being in the news, it’s about making effective action more likely to happen.

                • @gmtom
                  link
                  120 days ago

                  I think when you get to the point where you’re comparing mass murdering puppies to spraying corn starch on a rock then you’re not really arguing in good faith anymore

    • Refurbished Refurbisher
      link
      fedilink
      2221 days ago

      IDK what they were thinking with the Stonehenge stunt.

      I wouldn’t put it past Big Oil to infiltrate climate activist groups to make them appear unlikable. Same with throwing paint on a painting.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2421 days ago

    There’s no stopping climate change in capitalism.

    And nothing was done in the way of ending capitalism. Asking “pretty please stop using oil we will paint things” to a capitalist government is ridiculous. The only way to end emissions is being us the ones who control the industry.

    So, from my point of view was a useless, possibly counter productive, action.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1721 days ago

      They also demand system change not climate change. But resting on “if we don’t abolish capitalism, everything else is useless” we will never abolish capitalism. It is not a binary switch. It is a long and hard process for which every action counts. And defying the capitalist order and narrative of the corrupt and immoral government is an important step towards that.

      Nobody will be more capitalist and more for the use of fossil fuels after he read whatever Murdoch tabloid complained about this. And who was like “well now i am against climate action” was just looking for an excuse, but always on the wrong side already.

    • @RedditRefugee69
      link
      520 days ago

      To some extent communism could be trading one problem for another authoritarian that doesn’t care. Powerfully influencing culture to be altruistic and not money hungry is probably the real solution but the tangible one would be a big step back toward democratic socialism. Jus my 2 cents

  • Phuntis
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    stop oil are industry plants they were founded by the daughter of an oil exec they’re designed to make the real people protesting look crazy by lumping them in

    • Delta
      link
      fedilink
      3621 days ago

      A claim like that requires some sources

      • Zagorath
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3721 days ago

        That Just Stop Oil is funded by the daughter of an oil exec is very easy to prove and not at all controversial.

        Why she funds it is another matter entirely. If she’s sincere, she wouldn’t be the first child of a conservative billionaire to take a more progressive stance. On the other hand, if it is a false flag operation, it wouldn’t be the first time that’s been done either.

        Here is her sharing her own perspective.

        To take an Occam’s razor approach, that she’s sincere requires assuming…that she’s being sincere. That she’s operating a false flag requires assuming that she’s lying to the press by claiming to care about the environment, and that she has successfully fooled not just the press but also the people she’s giving the money to (or an even bigger assumption: that it’s a massive conspiracy and everyone involved in JSO is in on it, but nobody has leaked) of her sincerity, and that she believes the best thing she can do to prevent action on climate change is to fund organisations aiming to promote action on climate change.

        It’s certainly not impossible, but yeah. Occam’s razor suggests to me that unless we get more evidence to the contrary, we should put more stock in the idea that she’s sincere.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1921 days ago

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Stop_Oil

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/10/just-stop-oil-behind-the-scenes-with-the-activists

      I can’t find any evidence that they were founded by her but she did help found the climate action fund which has donated a large amount of money to them as well as Extinction Rebellion

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Getty

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Emergency_Fund

      I think she’s probably genuine but that’s also besides the point. Whether she has alternative motives or not all that really matters is whether the activism is helping or hurting

  • @CluckN
    link
    821 days ago

    “Please don’t shit your pants in public”

    “I’m actually protesting climate change that means if you disagree with me you are wrong”

    There’s a reason why the CEF funding these bozos is founded by a Getty oil heiress.

    • Poplar?OP
      link
      English
      4
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      deleted by creator

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    720 days ago

    From my experience capitalism and climate activism are incompatible ideologies. Capitalism is entirely, without a doubt, entirely focused on the bottom line. If it doesn’t make them more money and/or costs them more money, they’re against it. That’s why something as universally bad as smoking took so long to be essentially outed as a problem, and something people should actively avoid. Just watch “thank you for smoking” for more detail on that one.

    Cleaning up factory emissions and by-products/waste, doesn’t earn companies any money. It’s the right thing to do, but it’s far easier and cheaper to simply dump the raw waste into the environment. Whether thats chemical runoff, or toxic fumes, or carbon emissions, etc. To safely collect and dispose of the by-products is an expensive process.

    Any efforts from companies that are “green” is either that they can offer you a marginally less-bad (environmentally) product at a reduced cost to them. Whether that is because they passed those costs onto the consumer, or because the “green” alternative is actually cheaper, is the only question. As soon as the “green” alternative costs them more and they can’t justify an increase in product cost for being “green”, they simply won’t do it. Anything outside of this scope is simply a PR stunt to try to gain favor with the more environmentally conscious consumers to try to pull them away from their current brand loyalties, over to your brand.

    Pretty much all pr stunts of this sort are one-offs, to give the illusion of making an effort, while doing essentially nothing actually helpful.

    Unless they can somehow make a profit from “saving the planet” then they won’t do it. It’s against their very nature.

    • Cassa
      link
      fedilink
      220 days ago

      the conclusion is correct, but might I also add that it’s because of short term profit, today not tomorrow.

      if capitalism just focused on long term profit, then climate would be tackled, as well as health issues like smoking. these things are all unprofitable.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        219 days ago

        This is completely valid. I didn’t want to get into the economics of short term vs long term gains, etc.

        There’s a paradox in environmental activism, like with many other things. Basically, if you do everything in your power to avoid an environmental catastrophe, and that catastrophe does not happen, then, did it simply not happen because it never would have happened? Or did your impact avoid the issue?

        There’s no way to know.

        You know what you can tell really quickly? This quarters profits… Something that seems to be a focus of every capitalist ever.

        Drive the earth into becoming an unlivable hellscape, but for a short time, create a lot of value for the shareholders.

  • @DarkCloud
    link
    021 days ago

    Climate change won’t put anything majorly under water for like 50 - 300 years.

    …it will expand desert regions at the equator, causing massive famines, country sized migrations, and resource wars long before that.