- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Rebecca Watson has an interesting video on this. The way things are going right now, people in 50 years will look back and say activists were the only people trying something, while most of us just waited for the shit to hit the fan.
News about climate change: i sleep
News about climate protests: REAL SHIT?
I hate how people are more interested in talking about protests than actual climate change.
It doesn’t help several of these protests have been proven to be started BY polluting companies to discredit climate protests.
Where did you get that information? Didn’t here that before.
Or you fell for the propaganda that’s discrediting them.
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter. Far too little is being done against climate change, on every level - socially, politically, economically, individually. One would have to wonder what the fuck is happening if we didn’t have some form of protest. They are necessarily going to become more extreme as time goes by, and they will have every right to do so.
People will use this to galvanize efforts against climate action, and it will work. If you want to seriously do something, go after the people causing the crisis.
Cool. How?
Do crimes
How is that gonna help?
It will inspire people to take more drastic action, and highlight the urgency of the cause in a way that targets those who are causing it. It’s also more likely to create sympathy, since the ones causing the problem are the ones being punished for it.
The climate crisis is not caused by certain individuals.
At least someone is doing something. The governments are way to slow imho. Also, there is literally no harm done. So everybody hyperventilating in the comments should maybe calm down a little.
At least someone is doing something
Yeah, actively giving talking points to right wing climate policy opponents and alienating the people that support their cause. That sure is something.
If you support the cause you would understand no harm was done, and media attention was generated, as planned. If you want to have a excuse for your inaction you bitch on the internet about it.
Negative reactions. I don’t know anyone who identifies with these movements and actions, on the contrary. As someone who’s trying to convince relatives to eat and act more sustainably, I feel it’s an uphill battle because they don’t want to side with these actions.
You’re not being an activist, just an asshole and not just to the people you want to be an asshole to
Now that’s just BS, sorry. Not a single person who was on the fence of doing something against climate change will go “oh well but I didn’t like the method of those protesters, now I won’t do it”.
The people who are constantly looking for excuses to do literally nothing are lost to climate action anyway. Every meaningful progress will have to be won against those people, not with them. If even slight inconveniences are too much to ask from them sure, they will shout and cry how this protest is the reason, but let’s be honest: They were never going to be a part of the solution anyway.
It’s not BS it’s reality. Especially for older generations, but not only, the way other people perceive them and their beliefs is important. If by supporting vegetarianism, climate advocacy, et. al they will be perceived as supporting these types of actions they won’t do it. Is it stupid? Absolutely, but it’s reality and a demographic of people you won’t be getting for your cause and for climate we can’t afford to lose credibility and supporters.
With this lack of nuance and understanding is how the left loses voters to the far right, and how activists lose supporters they can’t afford to lose
The BS part is that they would have done anything helpful to the cause without the protest.
This is just another excuse. “People think I support throwing starch at Stonehenge” is not a reason to vote conservative and eat red meat at every meal.
We are trying to make people change the way they live and act, of course most of them will find any excuse to not do it. The “any attention is good” way of doing things is a far right tactic and shouldn’t be used. It gives them the perfect excuse to not align with the beliefs and just maintain their ways.
They’re not doing anything except virtue signalling.
What did you do during the climate crisis, grandpa? Did you canvass politicians? Did you install solar panels? Did you vote for the green party? Did you blockade drilling sites? Did you run for Parliament?
No Jimmy I sprayed paint on some old rocks
May as well stay at home and stab yourself in the head with a fork until you black out.
What have you done against the climate crisis?
Well so far I’ve painted all the rocks in my garden neon yellow, so I’ve done about the same as those twats.
Oh, and also all the things I mentioned in my previous post (except run for Parliament), so there is that.
Doesn’t actually take that much fucking effort. I can’t guarantee that my actions will have definite results, but what I can say for sure is that at least I’m doing things that are actually targeted at fixing the problem and not just getting attention so that a bunch of useless wankers can feel self-righteous.
Certainly my solar panels will contribute something at least.
So, what have you done?
lmao keep complaining and sitting on your lazy ass
Fuck these people.
I’ve tried, they’re too busy tho…
They didn’t destroy anything, the paint can be removed without ruining the site, and they brought more visibility than sitting around with signs.
I don’t have a problem with this.
I don’t think that there is any purpose to “bringing visibility” to global warming in 2024. Effectively everyone is already aware of global warming and has been for some time.
The issue isn’t awareness, but disagreement over the weight to put on policies to mitigate it. And I don’t expect that doing stuff like this is going to change people’s positions on that weight.
The fact that you’re using the wrong term just shows that yeah, it kinda does need more visibility I guess.
What “wrong term”? Global warming? Because The Guardian prefers to call it “global heating”? Or am I missing something, because that complaint would be amazingly petty.
Anyway it’s not about bringing visibility to global warming to make people aware that it’s going on. It’s about making a statement. That statement, as I understand it, is “Climate change! Wake the fuck up and do something about it, people!” I don’t know if anything will sufficiently get that message through, but it’s understandable that they want to try, and painting Stonehenge orange (reportedly in a non-toxic water-soluble paint that will wash away in the rain) seems like a somewhat effective way to get the attention of the news media.
Climate change, the article literally only uses that term… it’s quite a simple but very important distinction.
It’s climate change since it causes extremes at both ends.
Your ignorance isn’t an excuse.
Yes, the phenomenom under discussion is climate change. Specifically, it’s that change which is a result of the anthropogenic net radiative forcing that increasingly puts more energy into the global climate system, making it less predictable, more dangerous in various ways, and generally warmer, a.k.a. “global warming.”
It’s not a religion. Correct spelling of the magic incantations does not matter. Calling it global warming, like Al Gore did, in casual conversation is fine.
and generally warmer, a.k.a. “global warming.”
Incorrect, it also make colder temperatures colder, it’s not “generally”, one way or the other.
See, the wrong shit IS STILL being perpetuated, and the wrong term only exacerbates it. Case in point, your ignorant comment that explains it wrong lmfao.
Calling it global warming just shows your ignorance to the issue and your explanation proves it, it’s causes extremes at both ends, not “generally warming” like your ignorant ass is claiming lmfao.
Edit, I see people still love to eat and perpetuate propaganda eh? Correct people incorrectly and call it “warming” lmfao. All shows is your ignorance and how asinine you are, and it’s why it works, the public does the work for them… fucking yeesh.
They are basically 5th columning environmental causes when they do shit like this.
Normally I’m tepid on this kinda headline getting, but I feel like Stonehenge of all things is not the ideal target for the supposed intent of these kinds of protests.
The intent is to get people to talk about them and their message.
Well known monuments are great for that kinda stuff.
Yeah, we’re all talking about what unhinged dicks they are and wishing for them to be disbanded. Great job!
Why not? They used starch. It’s not like Stonehenge is actually damaged. And using symbols people care about is the only way to convey that the crisis we’re facing is actually threatening things we care about. Everything else will be, and has been, ignored.
Climate protesters seem to have a knack for doing really irrelevant shit to bring attention to climate change.
No one dies? No one loses their balls? No beatings?
Is the planet dying or not? If so wtf is powder paint gonna do except fuck it up more???
Look at the raging reactions in the comments to a little bit of starch. If they would actually destroy something, let alone hurt someone, they’d be framed as terrorists and prosecuted in a heartbeat.
They are doing it to get attention. Because there is not enough attention on climate change.
I’m all for peaceful environmental protesting, but destruction of property and historic monuments/items only makes your movement look worse. News will spin it as the protesters being vandals and go about their day. Most people won’t think beyond that and will probably associate environmental activism with negative things such as vandalism or whatever else their favorite news calls what they’re doing.
It’s a realy interesting tightrope. If you just stand in a field holdong signs your don’t really get media attention. in order to get that attention you must do something that grinds peoples’ gears enough to have media outlets pay attention to them. But that kind of action needs to skirt the vandalism vector, as otherwise people would be like ‘they removed the unimportant turnip of Weddelsex, but I dont care’ on the other hand You also cannot be too radical, as it will hurt your cause.
It would be great if enviromentalists had a voice that could be audible over the control over media that is enacted by big companies (murdoch f.i.), but theres little big money in the message of climate awareness, and it’s a message most people dont’t reallt want to hear.
So… You take aim at objects that are deemed worthwhile and important for the people you wish to reach and try to allign your message with the importance of those ancient and important works.
It’s a losing battle as people choose comfort over complicated issues (seemingly) out of their control as annoyance, furthermore being made co-defendant in the case of climate destruction is rather jarring, therefore people are shy to pick up on them, as why should the burden be on them?
So theres no way to positively make your message. Therefore any demonstration is jarring per se, even if peaceful it needs to be at least known, and ironicaaly the best way to do that is to do something outrageaus, as our reptile brain goes very hard on that.
Powder, its quite likely water soluble
Yup, its starch based and water soluble. It’ll come off with a little water, no harm done.
good thing no historic monuments/items were destroyed and your comment is completely off topic.
There’s no need for the media to spin anything, the protestors committed vandalism and, unless they are protesting the existence of prehistoric monuments, they did a really shitty job of even calling attention to their cause.
No, Just Stop Oil is not an “activist” group. They’re in cahoots with the enemy. They’re defamation, and their intent is to give the radical right something to point to.
Just Stop Just Stop Oil.
EDIT: There are waaaaaaay too many assumptions happening in this thread.
“Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers” is what I’m hearing.
Sorry. But as climate change gets worse and corporations continue to annihilate the living beings on this planet while governments uphold their ability to do so, the protests will only become more radical. We’re long past the point of polite protests, and they didn’t work.
I’m sorry dog but spray painting an ancient wonder isn’t an environmental protest.
It’s corn starch. The ancient wonder suffers more defacement in the form of erosion because it rains every 4 seconds in the UK. Stonehenge will be perfectly okay.
Radical in my mind is burning down an oil plant. Going after a piece of history is disgusting. At least ruffle the feathers of the people you’re standing up to.
I’ve read the other replies to my comment, but yours is the only counter that I mostly agree with.
Yes, going after an oil plant would certainly be a much more radical form of protest. The main issue is that targeting something like that carries massive risk and is unfathomably challenging. That isn’t to say they shouldn’t do it though.
My comment was more a response to some of the general negative sentiment that I see in response to other protests that are disruptive. It’s usually reactionary claims of “you’re making people mad, so it’s counterproductive”, while ignoring the fact that nothing else has worked.
Protests should be disruptive in that they incite change, not in that they incite rage. This.
Protests will always incite rage. The question is “is it justified?”. In this case, sure, but your unhinged comment that started this thread is just reactionary drivel.
