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?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months 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] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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] 6 points 5 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] TopRamenBinLaden 4 points 5 months 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.