this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
160 points (86.0% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2691 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If you ever wanted to read about fake druids vs. environmental activists, now's your chance.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

As always, while I support their claimed ideals, I can only see them as petty vandals who care more about attention seeking than their cause. They certainly won’t get any of my time or attention. If you’re against Big Oil, protest Big Oil and half the population will agree. If you’re intentionally seeking my outrage with unrelated crap, you got it: rot in jail

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

They do it because the stuff you're asking for doesn't work that well, but this does (that said they do still engage in those actions as far as I'm aware). Activism is about making noise, there aren't many tools beyond that and they've worked for all sorts of issues in the past.

The point is that JSO doesn't exist in a vacuum.

https://wagingnonviolence.org/2023/12/the-method-behind-just-stop-oil-annoying-madness/

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (9 children)

Yeah I don't know why they wouldn't block the entrance to an oil refinery. Some people would be unhappy about this especially the people that work there. But the general public could understand, who knows it could possibly slow production for a few days.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (12 children)

They have. Compared to this, it got barely any news coverage.

That is why they do this. Their only goal is attention, and they do that quite well.

The way they seem to operate is quite smart, actually:

  • Their stunts get a lot of press and bring climate change to the forefront of people's minds, frequently.

  • They're not a political party, so pissing voters off isn't a problem. They can afford to be unpopular to further the cause.

  • Those who already care about the climate won't change that based on a small group they dislike.

  • Those who call them "terrorists" are people who call anything short of licking oil company boot "eco-terrorism". They were never going to be convinced to care whatever the group does. Probably read the Daily Mail.

  • Those who are apathetic about the climate are still going to be apathetic, with a bit of rage towards this group as with the others, but again, ultimately that doesn't matter as they still won't change anything based on a single group.

  • A small handful of people will be inspired by them and their constant reminders of climate crisis, and be motivated to push for change.

The last bullet seems to be the target audience of the group. And they're the ones who will actually do anything.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What cause are they furthering though?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Not paint, literally orange corn flour that'll wash off with the first rain. Stop spreading disinformation for big oil pls. Idk why they went for this instead of classical art, but acting like this is some terrible evil crime is exactly what oil companies want you to think, they want you to root against people protesting climate change, no matter how tiny their vandalism is in the grand scheme of things

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

What is it the activists wanted people to think? Did they consider their actions might lead people to turn against them instead of against the oil companies?

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

The article says it came out of a spray can. So how am I spreading misinformation?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Not misinformation, disinformation. You read the article, yet choose to act like this is comparable to spray paint or something else that won't immediately wash off. This is like getting indignant bc somebody threw a couple eggs at a great pyramid. It's stupid and irrelevant to climate change, but sharing articles where the title says they threw acid instead of eggs is just fucking wrong, and serves no purpose besides discrediting climate activism

Edit actually this article says nothing about corn flour, sorry for accusing you of ignoring that. That's super shady and shitty on the Guardian's part, a detail that majorly changes how actually harmful this act was

Double edit you're still acting like they threw actual paint, so nvm my apology. Stop being such a blatant oil shill

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

They posted the article with the headline completely unchanged. If you wanna be mad at someone, be mad at The Guardian.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I am for sure, all the articles I've seen on this have called it paint and it's really disingenuous and frustrating. The way they describe it makes it sound like they took a can of paint and splashed it on the stones. I interpreted it that way at first and got pretty mad, imo there's no good environmental message that's sent by destroying the ruins of long dead civilizations. At least defacing classic European art can be seen as a protest against the colonialist attitudes that led to climate change, Idk how actually effective it is at forcing change but part of me gets some morbid satisfaction from it :3

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Paint: a coloured substance which is spread over a surface and dries to leave a thin decorative or protective coating.

So in this case the cornstarch is the paint. No misinformation at all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Nobody's first thought when they read "paint" is corn flour that easily washes off. Headlines written like this play these kinds of semantics games with their headlines to drive angry engagement, or even to push a political agenda sometimes. The Guardian seems to run articles critical of the oil industry fairly often so maybe this isn't sinister like that, I'd have to do more research on The Guardian and the article's author to get an idea

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

It's stone. Stone is full of cracks. It will get into those cracks and not wash off.

Furthermore, environmentalists pissing people off in the middle of a religious ceremony does nothing to help with an environmental cause. That's the way PETA goes about doing things. Do you think they've been remotely effective?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You know what else will get into the cracks?

Rain. To wash it off.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I get that the stunts will draw attention to the environmental issues the activists are protesting for, but surely not pissing off the public would be beneficial in spreading a message to them?

The uninvolved public would just remember the attempted defacings, and not care about the damage being temporary or minimal.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I agree with the sentiment, but I feel like the methods are pointless and even might have a reverse effect. Doing this does nothing really to help the cause, imo. Any minimal publicity it gets, I feel, just invigorates the right leaning conservatives to have more fuel to hate "the left" and "liberals". I just don't see any benefit to these types of stunts.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This isn't minimal publicity, minimal publicity is what they got when they directly targeted fossil fuels by blocking the supply lines.

https://wagingnonviolence.org/2023/12/the-method-behind-just-stop-oil-annoying-madness/

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago

Man big oil has it easy with all these slacktivists shitting in public and calling it a protest.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›