I would say yes, on the basis of the fact that we did. Scroll up to the OP of this thread.
Setting a 1000 acres of trees on fire.
That could be said of any protest anywhere for any reason. The point of a protest isn’t to inform you of a problem.
No, it’s not disingenuous. We may not agree, but I’m not lying when I give my perspective, and I’ll appreciate you not accusing me of such again, thankyouverymuch.
They broke some laws, sure, so they are criminals. Just like the people who broke laws sitting in at lunch counters to protest Jim Crow laws. People called them bullies, too, wanting to get their own way, not letting the nice white people have the place to themselves.
I mean, what is “their way”? Their way is that they want a planet that remains habitable for humans and their descendants. I’d say it’s the actual ones in power that profit from the destruction of our environment that are the bullies here.
You know, you are right, and it’s a complicated problem to which the solution is also very complicated. Telling someone that they shouldn’t complain about a problem until they have determined the ultimate solution is simply telling people to shut up.
It’s up to you what you do about it. You could change your lifestyle to be less impactful to the environment, you could make purchases that are more eco-friendly, you could vote for lawmakers that will pass legislation that will stem climate change. They don’t know you, or what you can or are willing to do, so how can they possibly tell you what you should do?
Heh, militant. That’s funny. But, you don’t have to back them, you don’t have to send them money or volunteer, you don’t even have to send them well wishes. But, backing their cause, preventing or at least mitigating climate change is something you should get behind. You can choose your own method of doing so.
You already know their concerns and what you could do to help. This apparently has not worked to solve the problem.
Like I said, we already know the solutions, it’s just a matter of choosing to implement them.
Let’s put it this way, you’ve identified a problem, you don’t think that their messaging is effective. What solutions do you have for that, specifically? By your logic, unless you can say exactly what they should do in order to create an effective message that will solve the problem, then you shouldn’t complain about the problem.
Well, two things about that. One, they didn’t simply stand outside their local Exxon-Mobile with signs, they were more disruptive than that. And the second point is that what they did in the OP was apparently enough to get the OP to complain about them.
Anything that gets them noticed is going to be something that people like the OP complain about.
So, I ask, what protest would you find to be both innocuous enough that no one complains about it, and be effective in achieving their goal? I keep hearing people say that this isn’t an effective way of getting their message out, but I never hear any solutions.
Naturally I can’t find it right now, but there’s a video of one of these guys in the process of super gluing his hand to the pavement and then tossing the plastic bottle into a sewer. I can’t imagine why he’d have done that instead of just putting it in his pocket. In my mind, that just makes him look like someone that’s just there for the drama, not someone that actually cares about it.
They’re going to have to do a lot of damage control if Fox News happens to see that clip.
Also, while it wasn’t about oil, James Cromwell did a similar stunt a few months ago.
Protestors attaching themselves to things to make them hard to move out of the way has been a thing since as far back as I can see.
Now, if you want really stupid, lock your head in slaughterhouse machinery.
Different group, similar goal & tactics:
No one here is obligated to be their unpaid strategist. You can point out that something is failing to work without being required to fix the problem before your criticism is legitimate. Again, the fact that the thread has been spent entirely talking about their antics with scant discussion of their cause is a pretty good reason to think that this was poor messaging. What would make it better? They should hire someone to come up with some ideas because this doesn’t seem to be working.
And they aren’t there to be unpaid environmental scientists, engineers, or political consultants.
That’s what they are doing, but they are being told by the person that I was responding to that they are required to fix the problem before their criticism is legitimate
What’s to talk about? We all know that climate change is real and that it’s going to cause some serious problems for us in the not too distant future. What we are talking about in this thread is how committed people are to fighting it in the only ways that they have available to them.
Yeah, the environmental groups with multimillion dollar PR firms don’t do any better.
The problem is that it’s a message people just don’t want to hear. If they do hear about it, they complain about it. Was the OP actually put out by any of these protests? No. But the OP chose to complain about them anyway, not because the OP was in any way affected, but because they did something enough to be noticed.
No, they’re protesters. Their goal is presumably to raise awareness and action. That doesn’t seem to be happening here. If anything, they’re probably just turning people off.
I’m sure their options are wider than vandalism and glue if they set their minds to it.
Yes, of course it is. That’s silly. Inform and call to action.
Are really going to compare free white assholes vandalizing tens of thousands of dollars worth of property belonging to other whites to blacks being denied the basic freedoms guaranteed by the country in which they lived? That’s offensive.
Nowhere have I suggested they should not complain. And I don’t appreciate you insinuating that I did. Nor have I suggested that they shouldn’t protest climate change until they have “the ultimate solution”. What I have suggested is they should at least have a rudimentary plan or set of solutions - I mean that’s common sense, right?
I’ve also suggested that their goals would be better served if they did not alienate the very people that might help them, by vandalizing other’s property. This notion that “any publicity is good publicity” is absurd. I’m eco-conscious, I ride a bike when I can, I donate hundreds of dollars a year to good causes. I’m 100% behind fighting climate issues. But I consider these people, bad people and I will never give money to anyone they are associated with. The means do not justify the ends, period.
Again, ridiculous. This is just another way to excuse their bad behavior, in my opinion. If they know the problem, they should know the solution… and those solutions can broadly apply most everyone.
Again, you are mis-parsing me, and I’m starting to feel it is intentional. I never said they should not complain and, to use your words, “I’ll appreciate you not accusing me of such again, thankyouverymuch”.
How the fuck did you arrive at that? You don’t know me, you don’t anything about me. For the record, I’m against things that destroy our planet - including burning fossil fuels. You’ve jumped to the very wrong conclusion that because I don’t like their brand of protesting, that I must be pro-big oil.
I don’t why this is so hard for you to grasp. There are any number of ways they could protest that I could laude and stand behind that doesn’t involve vandalism. I don’t disagree with the message, but I strongly disagree with their tactics.
Maybe try that last line again before the edit window runs out.
ETA, that makes more sense now.
If they really wanted to get people’s attention they’d say a racial slur on Twitter then follow it up with “Now that I got your attention help fight climate change!”, they would be the #1 trending hashtag in no time.
I can’t even say that I agree with their message, because I don’t even know what their message is. Because in the midst of all of their attention-trolling, they neglected to even say that. In the protest the OP saw, some of the folks were holding up signs complaining that gas prices were too high. Is that what Just Stop Oil stands for? For all we can tell, maybe it is… in which case I disagree with them.
“Just Stop Oil” seems pretty self explanatory to me.
ETA, their website says “Just Stop Oil is a coalition of groups working together to ensure that the government commits to ending all new licenses and consents for the exploration, development and production of fossil fuels in the UK”
The soup idiots were going on about the cost of food and something something justice which isn’t what I get from Just Stop Oil.
I mean, the actual quote was
What is worth more, art or life?
Is [life] worth more than food? More than justice? Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?
The cost of living crisis is part of the cost of oil crisis, fuel is unaffordable to millions of cold, hungry families. They can’t even afford to heat a tin of soup
It may not have been the most direct way to connect soup and art to climate change and oil, but it wasn’t entirely lost.
From here.
And of course Volkswagen (slogan “fickt die emissionstandard”) would do that…
Right, throwing soup because people can’t afford soup because something something oil. Messaging sharp as a balloon.
Edit: Heh, can’t afford to heat soup. That’s even worse. How is stopping oil going to make it cheaper for them to heat soup? If anything, they’d want more oil.
This isn’t really true. Much of the world is in fact working on moving to renewable energy and away from oil. Companies all over are moving that way, as well. It’s needed to mitigate climate change and move toward energy independence.
See, this has one big difference to me:
Their demands are that the German government move to decarbonise its transport sector in a bid to help fight climate change. They also say that VW – one of the country’s largest carmakers – should do its part in the fight against pollution.
That is the sort of thing that makes sense as a protest. There’s something they specifically are advocating for. And it goes for the right targets.
The problem with Just Stop Oil is that, other than the idea that we should stop using oil, it’s not too clear what they want us to do. The best I could guess is that they wanted people to stop buying gas. This only makes sense for some people, though, who either don’t need to drive or can afford an electric car.
I’m not saying these guys can’t figure it out. But they haven’t yet, and it would be good if they did. Their name already makes it sound like the problem is far simpler than it actually is.