Yes, that’s what their website says. Which is the opposite of what the soup-thrower said. According to the soup-thrower, the problem is poor people not being able to afford to heat up their soup, and that problem will get worse if they stop fracking. Hence my confusion: Do they want no fracking, or do they want lower fuel prices?
I do not agree at all that getting people’s attention or getting people talking is a sufficient goal. That’s the easiest part, and tons of protestors do that. The question is if people actually know more about the problem than before. Do they have a better idea how to deal with it? And are they actually doing anything?
I don’t think it’s wise to reward people just for getting attention. It leads to people caring more about getting attention than actually doing anything. It’s why we have trolls in political office now.
They spin this into actual work? Then, yeah, maybe praise them for that. But, right now, it seems they’re struggling to get their message out, not using their attention grabbing activities well to accomplish their goals. They’re more something people mock:
I’d argue that, if you need to look up the protesters to get their website to read their mission statement to have an understanding of what they’re doing and why they’re doing it, they’re not getting their message out. That’s you having to dig to find their message.
Getting their message out would be someone walking away with a clear understanding of their objectives after seeing/reading about them gluing their tongue to a Monet.
Only in the vaguest sense. Other than “just stopping” doing something they don’t like, I’m not clear on the specifics of how and exactly why “just stopping” needs to happen, or more importantly, what is a viable alternative.
We agree that oil is a non-renewable resource, yes? And that oil provides 97 per cent of that country’s fuel for transport, and gas is a key fuel for heating and electricity generation? You seem to be a relatively intelligent individual, do you honestly believe that just stopping is a realistic solution?
Clearly, since their country’s infrastructure is set up for running on oil, they are not just going to stop. They can throw all the soup they want and the average joe isn’t going to be OK with no cars, transport or goods. Or having the economy collapse. It seems to me, these protesters would be better served by working on alternative energy solutions. Obviously they have not thought this through.
What they are doing is essentially hostage taking. Where is the breaking point? Would you be OK with them holding a gun to someone’s head and demanding the oil producers “just stop”?
It’s been pointed out numerous times in this thread that there is dis-belief in the “no bad press” fallacy. Unless you are suggesting that these people are creating a circus atmosphere in an attempt hoax or defraud people.
Someone tried your suggestion but didn’t remember the details correctly.
Under glass, fortunately. I emphatically agree with the last paragraph here: