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.
The fact that you missed the Stonehenge under water worries me.
I saw it. That implies that spraying cornstarch won’t change anything. Think about it.
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.
You need to learn to become compelling if you want to be heard. Annoying people will get you ignored, and likely discredited.
Also, you know nothing about me.
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.
You wrote “people like you” referring to me. Consider this lesson one in becoming compelling: know your audience.
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?
This comment is beautiful. It manages to admonish another for a concept it in of itself can not grasp.
I dunno, I’m hearing the person quite well. Probably because tone policing ain’t my thing.
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.
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?
We should ride bicycles and public transit, and the government should be investing in rail and walkability for us
Exactly what I thought, we need less cars.
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.
That’s great advice for an american, but do you have any for australians like me?
What do you think poor people should do?
They should throw their wooden shoes into the cogs of the windmills.
deleted by creator
Oh your a spineless defeatists! Anyways…
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.
Yeah I’m sure you were against the BLM protests as well. Begone liberal 👋
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.
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.
And you’re someone with poor spelling and reading comprehension.
It’s you’re, not your.
Its a poor indication of your position when you mock the delivery instead of the message.
I mocked his position and delivery actually because I said he also has poor reading comprehension. I read their entire chain of comments before replying, and it was evident @[email protected] was having issues reading and understanding the messages @[email protected] was sending.
Your elitism is showing. You obviously understood what I said.
Go back to reddit
It’s you’re, not your.
Oh thank God, OPs message was completely indecipherable until you translated it for us! /s
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?
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.
Sorry I don’t I’m barely techy I didnt even know there was a way to block down votes.
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.
You have poor media literacy
I think the wider point is that people will remain ignorant, even when they’ve irrefutably been proven wrong.
It’ll make the sea nice and thick.
I think they totally got that, and their point was painting Stonehenge didn’t help stop climate change, as evidenced in the last panel.
This right here is proof that media literacy is at an all-time low.
Anyone who doesn’t come to the came conclusion as I did is a moron
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.
It hasn’t made headlines though. Juststopoil goes after oil terminals, car manufacturers etc pretty often but it’s never reported on. The only protest that gets attention is souping painting or spraying cornflour on rocks.
Hmm. I wonder why the media is more heavily reporting one type of vandalism over another?
Fwiw I saw news articles about the planes being vandalized before I saw this one about Stonehenge, so the headlines do exist. Everyone’s news feeds are different though.
The headlines exist, but Stonehenge is what is generating the lasting discussion and will be the instance that most people in the world know about.
Yup, in another thread about the planes there’s nothing but assholes griping about stonehenge.
Almost like defacing art is actually the more effective type of protest.
Like the 3 private jets that were vandalized with orange paint in London.
I didn’t hear about that.
I am hearing about this.
They won we’re talking about it.
Because of what happened at Stonehenge.
The organization itself posting it on their site doesn’t mean people are hearing about it. Pretty sure the intent is to get the message to people who don’t visit their site regularly.
There are news articles about this recent juststopoil protest from almost all of the major news outlets. Here’s one from the associated press.
People are hearing about it.
Well i didn’t and i follow international news comparatively well for people in my country.
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.
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.
I’m criticizing the delivery, not the message.
I don’t care fucking one bit. It’s the same shit.
I’m criticizing the delivery, not the message.
That’s the same argument white liberals used during the civil Rights movement.
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.
I’ve heard of them. I’ve never heard of you. Your experience is insufficient data to be making this grandiose of a statement.
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.
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.
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.
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?
This argument is pointless. Neither of you is right. Arguing for or against optics is pointless.
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.”
Those people were protesting that they weren’t allowed to sit at lunch counters. These people are not protesting the color of Stonehenge.
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.
This argument is pointless. Neither of you is right. Arguing for or against optics is pointless.
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?
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.
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.
You’re lost. Move on. The only person on a high horse here is you telling people that they’re protesting wrong.
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?
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
Stonehenge wasn’t harmed. The pigment is water soluble, it washes off with the rain. No chemical damage.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It doesn’t help the message
Really? Because I’m seeing it being talked about a lot.
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.
It’s also leading to discussions between those complaining about and those “already in the fold”, facilitating the spread of information.
It is though. We’re talking about it now, but responding your disproving your own theory.
Everyone having this particular exact discussion is already convinced, though.
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.
Probably not or there wouldn’t be discussion.
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.
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?
Stop assaulting rocks with corn startch and be more like Timothy McVeigh
Y’all are nuts.
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.
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.
THIS
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.
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?”
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.
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.
Or its a representation of what the future looks like if we keep fighting the people who fight for all of us.
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.
Can you elaborate?
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.
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” .
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.”
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.
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
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.
There’s still people in the boat, I’d take that as “it worked”.
Maybe if you’re a doomer?
Won’t you just think of the shareholders? /s
Y’all are protesting the death of humanity wrong /s
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.
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.
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.
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.
Have you successfully protested before, and can you link me to such a success?
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.
In that case, perhaps we have different metrics for success
That’s fair. Be safe out there.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Disrespectability politics!
https://medium.com/@viridiangrail/introducing-disrespectability-politics-50f6e2622ce4
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).
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.
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.
Can you explain what you mean by impotence here?
The dictionary definition I was going for is: “The quality or condition of being impotent; lack of strength or power”.
Thanks, got that part. I meant more like, why do you say that? Because lacking power the activists are resorting to spraying monuments?
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.
For reference, Stonehenge is currently about 100 metres above what the UK considers to be mean sea level.
But I thought the point of comics was to be scientifically accurate!
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.
ineffective attention grab
Seemed to grab your attention.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
A claim like that requires some sources
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.
Great reply, thank you!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Stop_Oil
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
“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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
Yeah man we have to leave artifacts behind so the aliens know how stupid we were
