Stonehenge sprayed with orange powder paint by Just Stop Oil activists ( www.theguardian.com )

Sorgan71 , 5 days ago

Just stop oil is funded by the oil industry to make environmentalists look like morons.

Melvin_Ferd , 5 days ago

These activists make fighting to end climate change harder every time they pull this shit. It's pure asshole behaviour.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 5 days ago

People here keep saying it raises awareness. Who isn't aware at this point? And why do they think doing this sort of thing helps the cause? Pissing people off doesn't get them on your side, it does the opposite.

Melvin_Ferd , 5 days ago (edited 5 days ago)

Yea I struggle with understanding that explanation too. I think something that plays a huge part of this is personalities that group together. Most people understand how important social game is. All activists seem like they have no social awareness. Their only goal is attention. They take the idea that there is no bad publicity to an extreme. I really believe many of these activist are being organized and funded by the oil industry without even realizing it. I say that because why wouldn't they in this day and age. Its easy to funnel money to organizations secretly. We have proof they did this in the past.

https://www.climatefiles.com/exxon-knew/ are full of examples of this.

Great website for anyone interested on this topic. Full of documents from industries going back to the 50s showing internal documents and memos of how they knew and planned to discredit climate action

theparadox , 5 days ago

At this point I feel like it's akin to art that people just don't get. The average person doesn't understand the message or point.

These protestors are committing simple acts that threaten to damage something that people value. People are so very angry that biodegradable paint was sprayed on an ancient monument, or that soup was tossed onto the glass protecting a famous painting.

Yet they continue on with their lives and refuse to hold many corporations accountable while those corporations make our planet less habitable. This would become a wall of text that nobody would read if I tried to just outline the existential threat human society faces thanks to the reckless behavior of many of the organizations. The suffering, loss of life, economic damage... unimaginable... yet we are basically barreling toward that inevitability at full steam.

But I'm sorry, how silly of me. How could I forget that some scientists might lose the opportunity to study undisturbed lichen on Stonehenge this year.

Melvin_Ferd , 5 days ago

People are so very angry that biodegradable paint was sprayed on an ancient monument, or that soup was tossed onto the glass protecting a famous painting.

What is so maddening about this comment is how much it proves my point that you don't see. You need to accept it doesn't matter if the overall damage is none existent. Just like how a magician is never in danger or a wrestler isn't getting punched in the head. And we're all still left with strong feelings and compel us, sometimes even to action.

The real danger is not as important as the perceived danger. You're showing something to so many people that the average opinions becomes very important and the average opinion doesn't view this favorably. This is obvious to everybody but the activists who convince themselves this is the height of civil action.

And the end result is scientists don't get funding. Scientist funding is funded through public interests. Organizations, industry and taxes go to fund research. And when activists start stirring shit up, it makes many shrinking back like turtle heads until it blows over.

theparadox , 4 days ago

What is so maddening about this comment is how much it proves my point that you don't see.

...

This was literally the first sentence of my post. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough and "maddened you".

At this point I feel like it's akin to art that people just don't get. The average person doesn't understand the message or point.

I personally don't often enjoy art. In particular, the art where the artists are creating some kind of layered metaphor like a blank canvas with a cryptic title or something. The artist might be trying to communicate that consumerism will never fill our need for social contact or whatever but the message is lost on me.

The same thing applies here for most people I think. However, for once I actually see a meaning in it. I get horrified by the act, then I read later how little actual damage is done. Then I reflect on it and realize there is no way the protestors didn't know that the Mona Lisa was protected by glass. There is no way they accidentally used the least harmful bright paint they could find on Stonehenge... and it occurs to me that I was so immediately upset at the perceived harm but have become desensitized to news of the actual harm of climate change.

I'm not stating that this message is obvious or that people are stupid if they are angry - I'm stating it gets lost and most people don't get it. Yes, I'm a bit angry that the media often never mentions up front how little damage is done in any headlines I see. It's usually "climate activists throw soup on Mona Lisa, arrested, condemned by bystanders and art lovers everywhere" not "activists harmlessly throw soup on painting protected by glass to demonstrate humanity's questionable priorities". Sure, the glass can be in the article somewhere but nobody bothers to read that far.

Regardless, I agree that the end result isn't helping because most people don't understand. I, however, sympathetic with the activists and felt compelled to explain the message as I saw it.

What is most interesting to me is that the "powers that be" have so much influence over the news that I feel like harmless acts of protests have lost their power and are demonized by default. Climate change, income inequality, police abuse, Gaza... I'm honestly concerned that people with very legitimate concerns (at least, in my mind) will have to further escalate their actions in order to feel heard. This is just the beginning I think.

"I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard."
MLK

swordgeek , 6 days ago

They're terrorists.

Not activists, terrorists.

Adanisi , 6 days ago

That word... I do not think it means what you think it means...

sunbytes , 6 days ago

We for sure have felt the terror they wrought.

Terror, I tell thee!

AA5B , 6 days ago

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

SpaceCowboy , 6 days ago

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.

Adanisi , 6 days ago (edited 6 days ago)

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.

breden , 6 days ago

What cause are they furthering though?

Adanisi , 5 days ago

Inspiring people to act against climate change.

Melvin_Ferd , 5 days ago

They silence a lot of people fighting for climate change by making it harder for everyone to discuss this. They make it much harder every time they pull one of these stunts. Its not smart unless you're talking about the oil industry execs funding them

Adanisi , 5 days ago

"Silence"? How?

They don't make it harder to discuss climate change. People don't just go "a small group I hate cares about climate change so now I don't care". And if they do, well, they never actually cared about the climate. They cared about looking good and were never going to help with anything.

And stop with the conspiracy that they're funded by oil executives. The organisation of the granddaughter of an oil billionaire (who is dead) funds 2% of them. Because, children and grandchildren, believe it or not, can disagree with their elders.

Melvin_Ferd , 5 days ago

It's 100% not a conspiracy and you can go back to find many climate organizations have been infiltrated by agent provocateurs since the 70s. The FBI sent a guy in had a kid and pulled him out leaving an entire family. Industries have lots of leaked documents showing their support for these groups because they're so unpalatable to the average person.

These groups behavior often make it harder. It distracts from the fight and puts a giant clown hat on the whole issue. People will argue "it's not permanent damage" without realizing the point that underlies that. This is about image. Its not about actual effect. Image is valuable and these people think that damaging the image somehow is the key to action because it gets people talking. Its not the 70s anymore everyone knows. We need these groups to be more self aware and create civil action to get people on board instead of making it unpalatable. Or just stop and give room for groups or drive positive change.

Adanisi , 5 days ago (edited 5 days ago)

many climate organizations have been infiltrated

Ok but:

1. you're talking about the US, JSO is UK based

2. It is a conspiracy theory because you have no hard evidence that JSO is infiltrated and having it's strings pulled by big oil like you claim

It distracts from the fight

No I'd actually argue it brings the fight to the forefront of people's minds, specifically the people who are actually inclined to do something. Those who do nothing but complain about climate activism were never going to do anything useful and so their thoughts on the methods are frankly irrelevant since the methods work for those who actually want to act.

We need these groups to be more self aware and create civil action to get people on board instead of making it unpalatable.

They've blockaded oil terminals and vandalised terrible offenders driving climate change, and still do. It was nowhere near as effective as their publicity stunts, which get people talking. They just ended up getting whisked away by police and largely ignored by the news. Pointless.

Whether you like it or not, the sort of quiet, non-inconvenient activism you seem to be proposing has shown itself to be useless.

Melvin_Ferd , 5 days ago

Greenpeace, OWS, ELF, Activists at Standing rock and in Briton groups like CND (look up Mark Kennedy) have all been infiltrated and lead astray. But this group is somehow different? I call bullshit especially after seeing these groups piss off more and more people every time they make the news.

This doesn't bring any of this to forefront of peoples minds. I'd argue it does the opposite of what you propose. It forces an association between the topic and people who are not appealing.

You should really evaluate what you're saying here.

Those who do nothing but complain about climate activism were never going to do anything useful and so their thoughts on the methods are frankly irrelevant since the methods work for those who actually want to act.

This issue hinges entirely on getting voters to care. Yet, many groups and even you seem to dismiss them, saying "they don't matter." In reality, voters are the most crucial factor.

It makes sense that the idea of alienating the general public from climate action might be intentionally promoted by well-funded and organized entities. These entities have the resources to influence groups, and we've seen this pattern in many movements since the beginning. Their goal is likely to disrupt and weaken the effectiveness of climate action initiatives.

Adanisi , 5 days ago

This doesn't bring any of this to forefront of peoples minds.

If they didn't make headlines a lot less people would be talking about climate change at this moment.

This issue hinges entirely on getting voters to care. Yet, many groups and even you seem to dismiss them, saying "they don't matter." In reality, voters are the most crucial factor.

As I said earlier with examples for each category of people, almost everyone in this issue is not going to be influenced to change their opinion on a massive topic like climate change because of a small annoying group. Except those who'll be spurred onto direct action.

And in that quote I was referring to those who complain about any climate activism (see the comments on blocked oil refineries and painted jets YouTube videos). Not voters overall.

It makes sense that the idea of alienating the general public from climate action might be intentionally promoted by well-funded and organized entities.

This is a potential issue but as I've already said, I think what JSO is doing is quite clever for the cause and I don't think bad actors are involved. If they are, they're bad at their job.

AA5B , 5 days ago

People don’t just go “a small group I hate cares about climate change so now I don’t care”.

No they don’t, but if I want to talk about the same cause to try to change people’s minds, instead I have to explain away a bunch of extremists and try to get them to take the cause seriously despite those extremists

kaffiene , 5 days ago

1, BS. 2, The history of change is full of people who pissed off a lot of other people. Change never happens from asking politely and being meek

Melvin_Ferd , 5 days ago

survivor basis on that. And really how much change do we have here? Aren't we still fighting all the same issues for decades? Maybe time to face the truth

kaffiene , 5 days ago

It's not surivor bias. Unsuccessful protestors weren't all killed.
And no, we're not fighting all the same issues: gay rights, woman's rights, workers rights, racial equality have all made huge strides over the years and protests have led those changes.
That's the truth that you need to face.
Read up on the civil rights movement for a good example, or emancipation for women.

AA5B , 5 days ago

Their only goal is attention

This is not scammy advertising where “any attention is good attention”. This is an important cause where we need to build support

They can afford to be unpopular to further the cause.

Sure, no donations, no popular support, they can just be marginalized and ignored as a bunch of extremists. Everyone cheers when the cops cart them off to jail. Yay for attention though

Those who are apathetic about the climate are still going to be apathetic, with a bit of rage

This is where they’re wrong, and where I’m especially frustrated when it’s a cause I agree with. All those middle ground or non-active people who could be wooed as supporters, will now dismiss the cause as a bunch of annoying kooks. Nobody caused change by driving away potential supporters

Melvin_Ferd , 5 days ago

Why not fund raise and set up a lobby group and fund politicians to pass laws. Why stand in traffic. Seems like the most ineffective backward steps

SpaceCowboy , 5 days ago

Why not fund raise and set up a lobby group and fund politicians to pass laws.

Do you think some kids are going to be able to buy the support of politicians by outbidding the oil companies?

Melvin_Ferd , 5 days ago

Yes, why wouldn't they. What do you think TPUSA is

kaffiene , 5 days ago

JFC

SpaceCowboy , 5 days ago

By TPUSA do you mean Turning Point USA, the organization that's funded by billionaires?

Melvin_Ferd , 5 days ago (edited 5 days ago)

A single kid who won support and funding of politicians and other powerful people. A real asshole who I think dropped out of college.

I hear how the left is so much smarter by often I see the left doing foolish stuff like spray painting historical works to fight climate change or advocating to deflate tires from the general public.

All the while the right are going across the country to college campuses and bringing their band of idiots like JP and Kirk to speak directly to the youth about their issues

AA5B , 5 days ago

Do you think some kids are going to be able to buy the support of politicians by outbidding the oil companies?

Politicians care about votes, money is just an easy way to get them. No, a bunch of kids by themselves brings nothing to the table. A bunch of extremists probably never gets to the table. Do you know what’s the only thing that may outrank those corporate interests? Votes. If you bring votes to the table they don’t even have to buy, you’ll get a response

Notice what’s being discussed here. You claim this type of action gets people talking but no one here is discussing their cause nor supporting it

SpaceCowboy , 5 days ago

Yeah because these people are making random attacks on landmarks instead of going after oil refineries and gas stations. Their strategy is confusing to the general public.

Targeting oil companies directly would force people to talk about the actual issue. "These radicals put orange dust on Stonehenge what are they trying to accomplish with that?" vs. "these radicals got an oil refinery shut down for a day, what are they trying to accomplish with that?" The former requires an abstract explanation (which isn't effective) while the latter has a very obvious answer to the point where most people won't even bother asking the question.

Sasha , 5 days ago (edited 5 days ago)

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/

jj4211 , 4 days ago

the stuff you're asking for doesn't work that well, but this does

I didn't think that this works. The examples where people claim "is just like this" I don't see as being like this.

The ones that work are ones that have some relation to their cause. Forcing everyone to really think about an issue Inherent to the act. For example, going about and doing this to parked private jets, which they did.

Just doing anything to get attention isn't useful if there's no Inherent message in the act itself. Especially with climate where everyone already has awareness, just not action.

Being merely loud is not going to sway hearts and minds in your favor.

kaffiene , 5 days ago

It's orange power which washed off with water

EndlessApollo , 6 days ago (edited 6 days ago)

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

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

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

EndlessApollo , 6 days ago (edited 5 days ago)

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

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

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?

Adanisi , 6 days ago

You know what else will get into the cracks?

Rain. To wash it off.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 5 days ago

That's really not how things work. We know a lot about ancient foods specifically because they get stuck in cracks in tools and we can get them out and study them. The rain didn't get the tiny flecks of wheat out of the cracks.

Adanisi , 5 days ago (edited 5 days ago)

This is a fine powder which will dissolve in water. It will wash out and honestly, if it doesn't, it's so deep in that its completely unnoticeable and doesn't matter. Much worse has happened to Stonehenge.

EndlessApollo , 5 days ago (edited 5 days ago)

"The rain didn't get the tiny flecks of wheat out of the cracks" Yet somehow it's clean. Why are you continuing to act like this is comparable to actual paint? You're whining about something that's literally not a deal in the slightest, you really should stop making free propaganda for oil companies

slight wording edit at the start

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 5 days ago

Maybe if you had given me that article before you started berating me for not knowing what I was talking about, I might have been educated on the subject.

Are you really not able to talk to people without insulting them?

Adanisi , 4 days ago

The responsibility is on you to do your research before you argue about a topic.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 4 days ago

My claim about ancient foods in stone tools is accurate. It is what I was basing my claim on. It's called residue analysis. I'm not sure why any research would have told me otherwise. Do you expect me to be a geologist?

I admitted I was wrong in this case, but you apparently want me to somehow go back into the past and undo what I posted. Sorry, my time machine has been on the fritz lately.

And if that's not what you want, exactly what do you want? Do I need to make a public apology? What?

Kolanaki , 6 days ago

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

EndlessApollo , 5 days ago

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

tobogganablaze , 5 days ago

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.

EndlessApollo , 5 days 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

SpaceCowboy , 6 days 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?

illi , 5 days ago

I can root for people protesting climate change and think this was incredibly idiotic.

corus_kt , 6 days ago

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.

Yawweee877h444 , 6 days ago

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.

Sasha , 5 days 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/

kaffiene , 5 days ago

Are you seriously really upset at coloured cornflour being spread over some rocks?

CluckN , 6 days ago

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

andrew_bidlaw , 6 days ago

I think this action lacked some supportive commentary, a spoken idea why they did it and what does it mean. It comes of as an attention bait without a clear message. It's also too random to associate it with climate activism without a context.

After hearing about that I thought what would become our Stonehenge if we fail miserably (Statue of Liberty, like in Planet of the Apes?), or if we get back into a new Stone Age making this circular monument both the past and the future of humankind. I would not probably care that much if they actually damage it a bit if that's for creating a powerful symbol, adding to it's (contemporary) significance instead of taking from it. But that's too much to ask, it seems, all we can do is orange paint.

kaffiene , 5 days ago

Orange cornflour

PugJesus , 6 days ago

One hopes the powder doesn't cause any lasting damage to a priceless piece of human cultural heritage.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

That is my worry. Even if it gets washed off by rain, it can get into cracks.

DragonTypeWyvern , 6 days ago

Eh.

That, too, is the history of the monuments.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

That doesn't justify it.

mojofrododojo , 6 days ago

...while I may not like the forms their protest takes, I think - well, they certainly think - it's worth your ire if it opens people's eyes to the oncoming worldwide disaster.

suspect they're right.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

Whose eyes do you think aren't open at this point that this stunt would open them?

Like I said elsewhere, this is like what PETA does and people are still eating a lot of meat.

mojofrododojo , 6 days ago

So you really think you understand what's going on?

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/6/16/what-grief-for-a-dying-planet-looks-like-climate-scientists-on-the-edge-2

because the scientists are scared shitless.

dunk on peta all you want, it's not going to stop the world cooking.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

And painting Stonehenge is going to stop the world cooking?

mojofrododojo , 6 days ago

better chance of that swaying people than sitting around with their thumbs up their asses.

you do you mate.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 5 days ago

Yeah, well, it's hard to go out and do environmental activism when you're too sick to walk more than half an hour without having to rest for four hours afterward. But you do you.

Incidentally, what have you done? Since you're so quick to point a finger at me, let's hear it.

mojofrododojo , 5 days ago

I'm not gonna dox myself for your satisfaction, but in the past few years I've volunteered with habitat for humanity, done wetlands remediation and volunteer weekly with an org that repairs and gives away tools to nonprofits, keeping them out of the waste stream and helping people take care of their houses.

if you're too sick to walk, that shouldn't cause you to shit on everyone else's efforts.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 5 days ago

The only people whose efforts I "shit on" are the people who are intentionally pissing others off in order to further their cause.

I really don't know why people think that you can piss someone off into taking your side. I keep asking- have you ever done that?

mojofrododojo , 5 days ago

have you ever stopped for one second and asked: maybe it's not about me?

stfu and move on with life. jfc, not everything is about you mate. I know this is probably exceptionally hard to comprehend, but really, it's not.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 5 days ago

Cool. I wasn't the one who made it about me.

And it's weird that you're telling me to move on from a thread I posted myself.

AA5B , 6 days ago

It opens my eyes to a bunch of attention seeking vandals who should rot in jail. It’s too bad we don’t have anyone willing to protest Big oil: I could get behind that

mojofrododojo , 6 days ago

It’s too bad we don’t have anyone willing to protest Big oil

literally what they're doing, you just don't like their method. I'm not here to defend them, but that's pretty pathetic.

kaffiene , 5 days ago

Get a grip

hl4pqnjb92 , 6 days ago

Imagine being so bored to do this

unexposedhazard , 6 days ago

Those stones will be suuuper useful to us after we died because our global ecosystem collapsed.

Maybe we should set up our own stones for explaining to future generations why we didnt do anything about climate change until it was too late.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago (edited 6 days ago)

I'm not sure how this helps though. These people can say to future generations, "well, we didn't get people to stop using fossil fuels, but we did damage a 5000-year-old monument that was made long before anyone had the idea of burning fossil fuels to make people aware of a problem they were already aware of but powerless to do anything about."

This isn't going to stop oil companies from drilling for oil.

It reminds me of a friend of mine I used to follow elsewhere on social media. Every day, she would post pictures of 'death row dogs' in nearby shelters that were going to be euthanized. There was fuck all I could do about it. I already have two dogs, from shelters. I don't have room for more and I couldn't afford more. So all it did was make me feel like shit. Then she started posting photos with "too late" messages and I stopped following her.

How does that help?

Mirodir , 6 days ago

but we did damage a 5000-year-old monument

As far as I could find out, they used orange cornflour that will just wash off the next time it rains. The most amount of damage anyone could seriously bring up was that it could harm/displace the lichen on the henge.

That's not to say that I specifically condone the action, but it's a lot less bad than this article makes it sound. It's the same with the soup attack on one of van Gogh's painting, which had protective glass on it. So far all the JSO actions targeting cultural/historical things (at least the ones that made it to the big news) have been done in a way that makes them sound awful at first hearing, but intentionally did not actually damage the targeted cultural/historical thing.

I think the biases of the journalist/news outlet/etc. are somewhat exposed by which parts they focus on and which they downplay or omit entirely.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

I hope you're right because this article says they used a spray can.

Also, orange dye can easily get into cracks in the rocks and stay there for a very long time. Especially if it displaces the lichens. That won't make it collapse, so maybe 'damage' is not the right word, but this is potentially long-lasting vandalism which, as far as I can see, will have no effect on the actual problem.

Mirodir , 6 days ago (edited 6 days ago)

I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.

Which brings me back to the last point in my comment.

I also hope I'm right. The two times I looked into it (right after the attack and before writing my comment) both came up with that result. Also it seems that English Heritage came out today saying there was "No visible damage".

As I said, I'm not writing to defend the action, just pointing out that the OP article is, willfully or not, omitting certain aspects that could make JSO look a little bit better.

Edit: Formatting

Blackbeard , 6 days ago

To play devil's advocate against the devil's advocate, I'm not sure "Stonehenge covered with orange corn starch by Just Stop Oil activists" would have communicated the kind of emergency these activists are hoping to convey, so they're clearly counting on the headline grabbing people's attention and triggering their outrage meter. In that way, the journalist might even think they're helping the JSO group.

Carrolade , 6 days ago

I agree, I think they've been remarkably responsible about avoiding lasting damage. What upsets me is how they're fueling the far-right rage machine with more propaganda ammunition at a time when we are already fighting a fierce and undecided battle to live in a world that isn't run by exclusionary ideological nationalistic idiots.

It's like they cannot understand that some people don't want the world saved, and agree with Hitler when he wrote about the tears of war being the bread of future generations. A sentiment that basically says suffering=good. So, more suffering=better. Will climate change cause suffering? Well, guess what then.

ringwraithfish , 6 days ago

How does that help?

We're talking about it

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

Which does exactly what? Is it at all likely that anyone actually able to do anything about this was unaware of the climate change disaster we're facing and this will change their mind?

unexposedhazard , 6 days ago

If you dont see any value in common discourse, you have already given up on life and the world imo.

Adderbox76 , 6 days ago

you have already given up on life and the world

Yeah, that sounds about accurate for me...

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

This is hardly common discourse.

BombOmOm , 6 days ago

Note how we are talking about how large of douchebags the activists are and just how much they damaged a cultural heritage site.

Fuck these people.

ringwraithfish , 6 days ago

“The orange cornflour we used to create an eye-catching spectacle will soon wash away with the rain..."

Wrench , 6 days ago

Yeah. That's their intent. But they really don't know for sure that their stunt won't have some completely unexpected effect. Some slow reaction with that specific kind of stone that only matters if the powder gets deep into some cracks for 200 years or whatever. Or attracts stone eating bacteria of some sort.

The point is that they dont know what they dont know. Every time they pull one of these stunts, they are introducing the risk of irrevocable damage to historically significant objects that should be left to future generations.

Stop fucking around with human history. Stone Henge is a world wonder.

Blackbeard , 6 days ago

But we're not talking about it. We're not talking about political action, or technological solutions, or mitigation programs, or investments in adaptation, or natural resource management, or harm reduction, or food distribution, or drought management.

No, we're talking about a bunch of first world children who decided to paint a bunch of ten-thousand year old rocks for attention.

Killing_Spark , 6 days ago

But it also stops us from talking about anything else. Part of this is not allowing other things to take over. Yes it would be even better if the discussion focussed on a productive way forward. It would be worse if we were discussing something else.

Blackbeard , 6 days ago

And therein lies the problem with today's generations. Instead of doing the hard work of getting involved in civic groups and local politics in order to mobilize voters and enact real, substantive change, we're taking the short cut by spraying shit on the walls so no one can talk about anything else.

You made my point very succinctly, so thanks for that.

Killing_Spark , 6 days ago

Oh I see we are at the "this generation is lazy" level of discussion. Have a nice day.

Blackbeard , 6 days ago

I'd say spraying colored powder on archeological sites and art galleries instead of getting involved in civic action to enact societal and economic change counts as lazy, yes.

Killing_Spark , 6 days ago

I mean how do you know that this "instead of" is factual and isn't in reality a "additionally to"?

Blackbeard , 6 days ago

Their website. It's a string of performative, attention-seeking destruction, peppered with the rare "letter to party leaders" or "disrupted" public event.

It's clear as day.

Killing_Spark , 6 days ago

It's possible to be a part of multiple organisations. Just because someone is part of JSO that doesn't mean they can't also be active in other groups. Highly motivated people like these tend to do that. It also makes sense to not lump these efforts under one name so that the public messaging doesn't get muddied.

Blackbeard , 6 days ago

The number of people described in those news articles that have been arrested, imprisoned, or spent months in court fighting charges, tells me they're spending more time in the judicial system than participating with other civic groups. The two protestors who painted Stonehenge are currently behind bars, so I'd say that cuts into their grassroots organizing time, wouldn't you?

It also makes sense to not lump these efforts under one name so that the public messaging doesn’t get muddied.

The public messaging is that people painted Stonehenge. I'd say the clarity of their messaging is exactly the topic currently up for debate.

Killing_Spark , 6 days ago

I won't speculate on how much energy they are able to put into other efforts because I don't have any actual experience with the judicial system. A few days behind bars are not enough to stop one from participating though.

The public messaging is that people painted Stonehenge. I'd say the clarity of their messaging is exactly the topic currently up for debate.

Now imagine this was a group that also engages in constructive participation. Suddenly the messaging of that group would be very messy, full of misunderstandings. Instead of this they do activism that will not be favourable in the public opinion under that specific organisation where it won't hurt the constructive efforts.

Blackbeard , 6 days ago

I won’t speculate on how much energy they are able to put into other efforts because I don’t have any actual experience with the judicial system. A few days behind bars are not enough to stop one from participating though.

If "a few days" is all you think we're talking about, you need to read the news releases on their website more closely...

Now imagine this was a group that also engages in constructive participation.

They don't. I just showed that they don't, and that's coming from someone who does constructive environmental engagement both at the grassroots and governmental level. My wife and I have dedicated our entire lives to environmental protection, and what these dipshits are doing is not constructive and makes the rest of us look like morons.

Suddenly the messaging of that group would be very messy, full of misunderstandings. Instead of this they do activism that will not be favourable in the public opinion under that specific organisation where it won’t hurt the constructive efforts.

They're using a front group because they know it will run afoul of public opinion and won't be constructive??? Do you hear yourself right now? I'm telling you that you're making a very convincing argument about why these tactics are such a waste of oxygen. They "stop us from talking about anything else" and "hurt the constructive efforts" because they're unpopular. They're accomplishing nothing except pissing people off and attracting attention away from more constructive endeavors. Surely you see that you're supporting my argument.

Killing_Spark , 6 days ago

If "a few days" is all you think we're talking about, you need to read the news releases on their website more closely...

All I see are things that will cost them money. Spraying paint somewhere wouldn't result in a lot of jailtime. If that's the case in the UK well that's weird.

They don't. I just showed that they don't, and that's coming from someone who does constructive environmental engagement both at the grassroots and governmental level. My wife and I have dedicated our entire lives to environmental protection, and what these dipshits are doing is not constructive and makes the rest of us look like morons.

So no you didn't show that. And while I want to thank you for your engagement, that doesn't give you the right to tell everyone else how they are supposed to engage themselves. You are entitled to your opinion but that isn't a definitive fact.

They're using a front group because they know it will run afoul of public opinion and won't be constructive??? Do you hear yourself right now? I'm telling you that you're making a very convincing argument about why these tactics are such a waste of oxygen. They "stop us from talking about anything else" and "hurt the constructive efforts" because they're unpopular"

It's not a front. It's just possible to engage in different forms of activism and if those differ in style it makes sense to separate them into multiple organisations.

They're accomplishing nothing except pissing people off and attracting attention away from more constructive endeavors. Surely you see that you're supporting my argument.

There is a common misconception that activism needs to please people to be valid or effective. I think we just differ in opinion on this. Which is fine but we don't need to waste time on arguing about this as it seems we are both pretty convinced of our respective stance on this.

Blackbeard , 6 days ago

All I see are things that will cost them money. Spraying paint somewhere wouldn’t result in a lot of jailtime. If that’s the case in the UK well that’s weird.

And time. You know, because time spent with other organizations is what we're talking about here? It takes time to fight a criminal charge. Besides, we're now nitpicking about how much time they'll spend in jail, rather than you proving with any evidence that they're doing anything more constructive than performative stunts. Rather than show actual good they're doing, you've just supposed that they might be doing it, and challenged that I can't prove that they don't. I hope you see how ridiculous this is.

Every second we spend on this stupid conversation is a second that proves the effect of the protest is to make the stunt the subject of the conversation, rather than the climate.

So no you didn’t show that. And even if I want to thank you for your engagement, that doesn’t give you the right to tell everyone else how they are supposed to engage themselves. You are entitled to your opinion but that isn’t a definitive fact.

I just pointed you to their website. The proof is in the pudding, and I'm not going to try to prove a negative.

It’s not a front. It’s just possible to engage in different forms of activism and if those differ in style it makes sense to separate them into multiple organisations.

If the protest accomplishes their goals, then why separate them? Why have a separate organization at all? What's the point of that?

There is a common misconception that activism needs to please people to be valid or effective. I think we just differ in opinion on this. Which is fine but we don’t need to waste time on arguing about this as it seems we are both pretty convinced of our respective stance on this.

No, activism doesn't need to please people, it needs to be targeted to inconvenience the right people.

If I show up at your home first thing in the morning and pour colored powder on the car you use to get to work, and I tell you "I'm helping spread the word about starvation in Africa", you're going to wash the powder off and then yell at me for being a fucking idiot and taking it out on you. You're not going to stop what you're doing and send a donation to feed children in Africa because I vandalized your car.

Killing_Spark , 6 days ago

And time. You know, because time spent with other organizations is what we're talking about here? It takes time to fight a criminal charge. Besides, we're now nitpicking about how much time they'll spend in jail, rather than you proving with any evidence that they're doing anything more constructive than performative stunts. Rather than show actual good they're doing, you've just supposed that they might be doing it, and challenged that I can't prove that they don't. I hope you see how ridiculous this is.

You and me are arguing a non-provable hypothetical. Yes time they spend in jail is time they aren't doing anything productive. That doesn't mean they don't do anything productive in their time they do not spend in jail. Also: The repressions they face as a consequence of their activism is part of the activism in my book.

Every second we spend on this stupid conversation is a second that proves the effect of the protest is to make the stunt the subject of the conversation, rather than the climate.

I'll argue that without that stunt we'd be talking about something different entirely likely unrelated to the climate crisis. Which would be even less helpful.

If the protest accomplishes their goals, then why separate them? Why have a separate organization at all? What's the point of that?

As I have explained already: it's about communicating to the public. Doing things under a certain name helps the public associate the current actions with past actions under the same name. If you do two vastly different things it helps to separate those by name too, otherwise it can get confusing for people that are not interacting with your group often enough.

No, activism doesn't need to please people, it needs to be targeted to inconvenience the right people.

If I show up at your home first thing in the morning and pour colored powder on the car you use to get to work, and I tell you "I'm helping spread the word about starvation in Africa", you're going to wash the powder off and then yell at me for being a fucking idiot and taking it out on you. You're not going to stop what you're doing and send a donation to feed children in Africa because I vandalized your car.

That's quite the strawman you've put up here. I'm not advocating for bothering random people at their home and that's not what JSO is doing. As far as I can tell they are targeting people of public interest, big events, and popular public places. Which is the "right" people because the climate crisis is about all of us. We all are contributing to it be it daily choices or our choices while casting our democratic votes.

Blackbeard , 6 days ago

You and me are arguing a non-provable hypothetical. Yes time they spend in jail is time they aren’t doing anything productive. That doesn’t mean they don’t do anything productive in their time they do not spend in jail. Also: The repressions they face as a consequence of their activism is part of the activism in my book.

Yes. We're arguing in circles because the protestors are the story, climate change isn't.

I’ll argue that without that stunt we’d be talking about something different entirely likely unrelated to the climate crisis. Which would be even less helpful.

I'd argue that we're still not arguing about the climate crisis. Not a single person in this thread has said a single word about climate change or how to solve it. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

As I have explained already: it’s about communicating to the public. Doing things under a certain name helps the public associate the current actions with past actions under the same name. If you do two vastly different things it helps to separate those by name too, otherwise it can get confusing for people that are not interacting with your group often enough.

Why do you not want these actions associated with the other group?

Furthermore, you don't think painting a fucking rock is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change, but having one interest group perform varying kinds of direct activism and grassroots organizing is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change?

That’s quite the strawman you’ve put up here.

It's a hypothetical, not a strawman, which should have been obvious when the sentence began with "if".

I’m not advocating for bothering random people at their home and that’s not what JSO is doing. As far as I can tell they are targeting people of public interest, big events, and popular public places. Which is the “right” people because the climate crisis is about all of us. We all are contributing to it be it daily choices or our choices while casting our democratic votes.

You're advocating for bothering random people at a tourist attraction, and you're doing it in a way that a) distracts from talking about actual climate change, b) leaves them virtually NO information about how to address climate change, and c) is potentially affecting people who already do what they can to address climate change. See how this entire thread has been about painting rocks, instead of daily choices we make that contribute to or affect climate change???

Killing_Spark , 6 days ago

The fact that we are talking about this and not about climate change is also partly your decision. You are free at any point to disengage this thread and focus your energy on more productive things. The fact that you're not doing this is just one example of humans being humans and not always doing the best of all things. Me still arguing with you is of course another example.

Why do you not want these actions associated with the other group?

I can repeat this as often as you want: people want to engage in different kinds of activities under different names because the actions do not relate and the messaging becomes confusing. I can both disturb the operation of a pipeline and try to mobilize locals to support the building of a solar power plant. Doing both under the same name makes everything more complicated even if there is personal overlap. I really don't get why you are so hung up on this.

Furthermore, you don't think painting a fucking rock is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change, but having one interest group perform varying kinds of direct activism and grassroots organizing is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change?

I don't exactly get the question here. I'm not saying any of those options is particularly confusing. I'm saying doing both under the same name might get confusing for people not intimately familiar with your group and their actions.

It's a hypothetical, not a strawman, which should have been obvious when the sentence began with "if".

The hypothetical that you are posing instead of what I'm actually arguing for. You then argue against that hypothetical instead of my actual points. That's a classic example of a strawman.

You're advocating for bothering random people at a tourist attraction,

Yes I'm advocating for bothering people in public. Where else would you bother people?

and you're doing it in a way that a) distracts from talking about actual climate change,

That's a choice the public is making. And again I think this is fine.

b) leaves them virtually NO information about how to address climate change,

That's also fine. It's not like there aren't any publicly available sources on how to fight climate change. If the people are interested they can go talk to the many many local groups that engage in productive activities.

and c) is potentially affecting people who already do what they can to address climate change. See how this entire thread has been about painting rocks, instead of daily choices we make that contribute to or affect climate change???

This thread is a prime example of people like you who could be allies here and engage people who aren't yet convinced that we need to take action, that instead take up a lot of time and energy to argue about the kind of protest.

Blackbeard , 6 days ago

The fact that we are talking about this and not about climate change is also partly your decision. You are free at any point to disengage this thread and focus your energy on more productive things. The fact that you’re not doing this is just one example of humans being humans and not always doing the best of all things. Me still arguing with you is of course another example.

No one in this thread or any other Lemmy thread about this situation is talking about climate change. Everyone is talking about paint on rocks.

I can repeat this as often as you want: people want to engage in different kinds of activities under different names because the actions do not relate and the messaging becomes confusing. I can both disturb the operation of a pipeline and try to mobilize locals to support the building of a solar power plant. Doing both under the same name makes everything more complicated even if there is personal overlap. I really don’t get why you are so hung up on this.

Because if you're not embarassed or ashamed of the pipeline disturbance/damage, then you shouldn't have a problem openly associating yourself with it. The fact that you're trying to hard to suggest it's prudent to distance oneself from a disruption/protest tells me that deep down you understand these things are perceived negatively and are therefore more likely to cause friction and disagreement than sympathy for a cause.

I don’t exactly get the question here. I’m not saying any of those options is particularly confusing. I’m saying doing both under the same name might get confusing for people not intimately familiar with your group and their actions.

And painting a rock is confusing to people who don't understand what the paint or the rock have to do with climate change. Yet you're her cheering for rock painting. Why are you worried about confusing the public in one instance but not worried about confusing the public in the other instance?

The hypothetical that you are posing instead of what I’m actually arguing for. You then argue against that hypothetical instead of my actual points. That’s a classic example of a strawman.

No, it's a hypothetical that's followed by a question mark. It's also called a "thought exercise". Nowhere did I attribute the argument to you in order to debunk it. You need to read the definition of strawman fallacy more carefully.

Yes I’m advocating for bothering people in public. Where else would you bother people?

You would bother people who aren't already on your team and in a way that leads to a productive conversation, rather than in a way that's completely detached from the cause and in a way that completely distracts from the issue.

That’s a choice the public is making. And again I think this is fine.

Also known as a shittily designed protest. If you set out to accomplish a goal and the public responds predictably in a way that doesn't help you achieve that goal, you should probably reflect on the fact that your methods were shit.

That’s also fine. It’s not like there aren’t any publicly available sources on how to fight climate change. If the people are interested they can go talk to the many many local groups that engage in productive activities.

Ah, so now it's enough to acknowledge that public resources exist and people can find it if they want? Because seconds ago you were cheering for people to paint rocks in a public place to keep people from talking about anything else. Seems you're not quite sure what you believe or how you think it should be accomplished. So what is it? Should it be shoved into people's faces so they can't ignore it? Or should they be left to find their own resources?

This thread is a prime example of people like you who could be allies here and engage people who aren’t yet convinced that we need to take action, that instead take up a lot of time and energy to argue about the kind of protest.

I am an ally. That's what you don't understand and refuse to entertain as a possibility. I'm an environmental advocate both personally and professionally, and I've been working on climate change and environmental issues for over a decade. And even I'm telling you that painting a rock is stupid and counterproductive. The only people who give a shit and empathize with it are people who were already on your team.

Killing_Spark , 6 days ago

Because if you're not embarassed or ashamed of the pipeline disturbance/damage, then you shouldn't have a problem openly associating yourself with it. The fact that you're trying to hard to suggest it's prudent to distance oneself from a disruption/protest tells me that deep down you understand these things are perceived negatively and are therefore more likely to cause friction and disagreement than sympathy for a cause.

You are still arguing from the perspective that activism needs to please people or else it's "embarrassing" or "shameful". I do agree that there is activism that displeases people, I think that is still valuable and nothing to be ashamed of.

But I can acknowledge that there are people that do not see that as something that should be supported. Different forms of activism have different target groups and different wanted effects. It's just a rational thing to address different target groups and produce different effects under different names.

Ah, so now it's enough to acknowledge that public resources exist and people can find it if they want? Because seconds ago you were cheering for people to paint rocks in a public place to keep people from talking about anything else. Seems you're not quite sure what you believe or how you think it should be accomplished. So what is it? Should it be shoved into people's faces so they can't ignore it? Or should they be left to find their own resources?

I want the issue front and center in the public discussion. You and I are both aware that people aren't 100% of the time participating in the public discussion but spend time doing their own thing. Which is partially influenced by what is happening in the public discussion. If climate change is a topic, even if just tangential, that still helps influence people to think about it in the times they spend outside of the public discussion.

I am an ally. That's what you don't understand and refuse to entertain as a possibility. I'm an environmental advocate both personally and professionally, and I've been working on climate change and environmental issues for over a decade. And even I'm telling you that painting a rock is stupid and counterproductive.

Again I want to thank you for your work, we need people like you. But I don't think that's all we need. It has become apparent that just silently working on this at the grassroots level hasn't shown the necessary progress. So people have decided to express their opinion in more loud and disturbing manners.

The only people who give a shit and empathize with it are people who were already on your team.

Again, this protest isn't about sympathy. I don't think anyone is having the illusion that a majority would be happy about this kind of protest. But I think "no one gives a shit" is pretty evidently a lie. People very demonstrably give a shit about Stonehenge being orange for a little while.

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

You are still arguing from the perspective that activism needs to please people or else it’s “embarrassing” or “shameful”. I do agree that there is activism that displeases people, I think that is still valuable and nothing to be ashamed of.

No, I'm very clearly saying these are "more likely to cause friction and disagreement than sympathy for a cause." For some reason you have committed to this weird hypothetical where the people currently sitting in jail have some other secondary organization they use for grassroots organization, which was a stretch when you first brought it up. I'm only speculating that you made that situation up because deep down you understand the need to disassociate yourself from these protests, and it's increasingly clear to me that you see their value in some kind of shell game strategy, where no one knows who's pulling the strings. But again, you made that up, not me.

But I can acknowledge that there are people that do not see that as something that should be supported. Different forms of activism have different target groups and different wanted effects. It’s just a rational thing to address different target groups and produce different effects under different names.

And water is wet. I'm saying that these protests are stupid and counterproductive. You're now veering off into platitudes that don't actually contribute anything to the conversation.

I want the issue front and center in the public discussion. You and I are both aware that people aren’t 100% of the time participating in the public discussion but spend time doing their own thing. Which is partially influenced by what is happening in the public discussion. If climate change is a topic, even if just tangential, that still helps influence people to think about it in the times they spend outside of the public discussion.

And what you still haven't grasped is that climate change is not a problem because people don't know about it. This isn't some kind of pink ribbon campaign where we're bringing attention to an issue that's too often ignored as nonexistent. Climate change is front and center, it's all encompassing, and it's deeply imbedded with the way that our entire global economy operates. The reason we can't deal with climate change isn't awareness, it's capacity and political will. If you bring up that I'm not eating enough fruit, and I tell you that I can't afford to buy fruit on my current salary, then pelting me in the face with oranges isn't going to get me to eat more fruit. It's just going to piss me off.

Painting Stonehenge or pouring soup on a priceless piece of art isn't doing anything to shine light on bad actors, or to challenge us to think about the problem differently, or to provide more information, or anything else like that. It's just blind rage. The people who weren't allowed to sit in whites-only cafes didn't protest by dumping piles of trash in the street, they protested by sitting in the whites-only cafe and refusing to move. They didn't protest having to sit in the back of the bus by painting the walls of the town hall. They protested by sitting in the front of the bus and refusing to move. They protested as throngs of people in the streets and marching across the country. This is two spoiled little shits spraying paint because they want to be the center of attention, and per your very words because they don't want us to be able to do anything except focus on them. This kind of protest is absolutely, unequivocally ridiculous.

Again I want to thank you for your work, we need people like you. But I don’t think that’s all we need. It has become apparent that just silently working on this at the grassroots level hasn’t shown the necessary progress. So people have decided to express their opinion in more loud and disturbing manners.

No offense, but you can take a hike. There is so much actual, tangible work that happens behind the scenes that I'm actually stunned you'd say something so flatly asinine. We are making progress, and we're doing it within existing governmental systems. We're doing it with marketing campaigns. We're doing it with land acquisition. We're doing it by working with these organizations, and these organizations, and these organizations, and these organizations.

Which really just reiterates that it's not awareness that's the problem. It's capacity. And painting a rock is like taking a shit in the middle of the street to protest climate change. Like, what the actual hell are you expecting to come from painting Stonehenge? And you're trying to tell me that hundreds of thousands of people working tirelessly day in and day out to solve this issue isn't enough, but a bunch of spoiled brats painting rocks is going to make a difference? Give me a fucking break.

Again, this protest isn’t about sympathy. I don’t think anyone is having the illusion that a majority would be happy about this kind of protest. But I think “no one gives a shit” is pretty evidently a lie. People very demonstrably give a shit about Stonehenge being orange for a little while.

I have no idea why you keep trying to twist my words. I'm saying that by doing this the only people who are going to sympathize with the cause the protestors are trying to highlight are the people who were already sympathetic with the cause the protestors are trying to highlight. And what I'm saying to you is that you're not convincing anyone who's not already convinced. In fact, you're probably pissing some of your allies off in the process, so it's quite literally counterproductive to do stupid shit like this. It hurts more than it helps.

So again, don't come back with that same platitude that protests have to be inconvenient to be effective. I'm not saying they shouldn't be. I'm simply saying that this is a stupid form of protest that does more harm than good and likely alienates some of your potential allies while converting and convincing absolutely NO ONE.

Killing_Spark , 5 days ago

Part of your anger seems to stem from me saying that this whole thing isn't moving forward fast enough and somehow you think that's a critique of your personal work. I assure you that wasn't my goal. But you have to admit that we are, globally, not moving fast enough.

The connection to the fight for racial equality is interesting but I'm not sure how well this applies. How do you suppose you can do anything equivalently "not accepting the rules we want to protest" in the context of climate change? Because before there was a big movement there were just a few people breaking the unfair rules. Which where likely talked similarly about as you are talking about these activists right now.

I'm only speculating that you made that situation up because deep down you understand the need to disassociate yourself from these protests, and it's increasingly clear to me that you see their value in some kind of shell game strategy, where no one knows who's pulling the strings. But again, you made that up, not me.

I am being very clear about the fact that two forms of activism can and should be done under different names. And that that is because some forms of activism that I deem valuable would have detrimental effects on the other form of activism if done under the same name. You seem to have a hard time getting that but that's not because I'm being unclear about this.

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

Part of your anger seems to stem from me saying that this whole thing isn’t moving forward fast enough and somehow you think that’s a critique of your personal work. I assure you that wasn’t my goal. But you have to admit that we are, globally, not moving fast enough.

No, the part that bothers me is you're completely ignoring the point I've made multiple times, namely that this protest is counterproductive and doesn't actually do anything to change the situation. It just pisses people off. It doesn't promote climate action or change the amount that people care about it or want to do something about it.

The connection to the fight for racial equality is interesting but I’m not sure how well this applies. How do you suppose you can do anything equivalently “not accepting the rules we want to protest” in the context of climate change? Because before there was a big movement there were just a few people breaking the unfair rules. Which where likely talked similarly about as you are talking about these activists right now.

With the exception of the first, none of those sentences form a complete thought, and I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say or if there's a question buried in there somewhere.

some forms of activism that I deem valuable would have detrimental effects on the other form of activism if done under the same name.

WHY?

This is so far beyond the point of the article I'm just not sure why you keep falling back on this singular argument. Why is that relevant? This thread started because I said the people currently sitting in prison are being lazy because they painted a rock rather than doing something productive. You've now latched onto some weird scenario where they can do multiple kinds of protesting but can't do it in one organization and have to form or join splinter groups to do multiple kinds of organizing? It like you've convinced yourself that what JSO is doing is fine because its members are doing something else less disruptive in another group, which is so disconnected and irrelevant as to be utterly meaningless. Not to mention it's a thing which (as far as I can tell) is entirely made up on the spot!

So again, why is one detrimental to the other? So far you've only said it's confusing, but you haven't said why it's confusing, and you also skipped over the part where painting a rock to protest oil is also confusing.

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

Well would you look at that, meaningful progress in Hawaii and Montana that didn't involve damaging priceless historical artifacts. Who knew!

Killing_Spark , 5 days ago

I really don't get what you're trying to say here. That's obviously great. I am all for doing this stuff, how could you even think I wouldn't? I'm saying both kinds of activism provide value.

(Aside from the fact that nothing really got damaged...)

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

And I'm saying one does and one does not. You've yet to actually demonstrate that these protests have any value or have ever moved the needle in the right direction.

ringwraithfish , 6 days ago

“The orange cornflour we used to create an eye-catching spectacle will soon wash away with the rain..."

kent_eh , 6 days ago

will soon wash away with the rain..."

Just like any attention they may have grabbed due to their stunt.

ringwraithfish , 6 days ago

For the record, I'm not saying I agree with their methods, but I don't think it's fair to them either that everyone is acting like they did irreparable harm to the monument.

Blackbeard , 6 days ago

No one is saying they did or acting like they did. What we're actually saying is that the methods were fucking ridiculous and counterproductive.

unexposedhazard , 6 days ago (edited 6 days ago)

Your example shows exactly what people are missing. Just because you did not have the capacity for more dogs doesnt mean that other people never got convinced to save one of those dogs. If those pictures convinced even just one person to adopt a dog, then it was worth the minor inconvienience that you had to go through.

Similarly the actual damage from this protest is slim to none (if they used the same stuff as usual that just washes away with water) and if it convinces somebody to get politically active for climate change then it was already worth it.

You thinking that you are powerless, shouldnt result in other people being forced to be powerless when they are not.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

That's not how climate change works. Everybody except for politicians and fossil fuel executives are me in this scenario. We're just being told constantly how the world is getting hotter and something must be done and there's fuck all I can do about it. And that's also true of every person at Stonehenge that day.

We can't control where the energy comes from and what cars are made and what bottles drinks are put in. And it's really clear that it doesn't matter who we vote for either.

So, in this situation, people see these stunts and just get angry and stop paying attention since there's nothing they can do about it anyway.

Again, how does this help?

fluxion , 6 days ago

There are so many "annoying" protests that this logic can be applied to that would seem pretty short-sighted in retrospect.

It's not these people that future generations will think poorly of.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

So this is just about what future generations will think, not about solutions?

Blackbeard , 6 days ago

Who's actually doing that, though? I mean that sincerely. Is there anyone who wouldn't have gotten involved, but who was swayed to do so by orange paint on historical artifacts? This seems like directionless compensatory venting by activists whose other strategies are failing to meaningfully persuade.

Further, what's the balance of people in the other direction who have an inkling that they'd consider doing more, but who are swayed against it by the increasingly unhinged extremist tactics these protestors are using? There's an entire online ecosystem rife with a combination of climate denialism, analytical paralysis, and doomsaying, and there's a non-zero number of people who likely either stop caring or throw their hands up in frustration because protestors are doing more harm than good by throwing what I'm sure looks to them like ridiculous tantrums. For every ally they gain, they probably lose some, too.

And that's not even touching on the fact that systemic structural changes are the only possible solution to this problem, and making the average person feel guilty and/or agitated is a weird form of victim shaming.

fluxion , 6 days ago

A better way to propose your question is: out of all the millions of people on Earth who hear about these activities, will literally 0 of them take any meaningful action against climate change?

The likelihood of that quite small, suggesting a non-zero value. That non-zero value is likely to be smaller than the damages of water-washable paint.

I'm not advocating for anyone here, but I think that's the calculus OP was suggesting, and it makes perfect sense to me.

If eye-rolling and annoyance produced greenhouse gases, then it might be a different story.

Blackbeard , 6 days ago

I'm not sure I follow. You're suggesting that >0 people take meaningful action as a result of hearing about this protest. I'm saying that >0 people take fewer meaningful actions as a result, and >0 probably turn away from your cause when they hear about stupid shit like this. So for every one convert in the right direction, there are some in the other direction. Whether or not the two balance is certainly up for debate, and which side you prefer to highlight at the expense of the other, depends on your preconceived opinion.

Which really just reiterates that this kind of nonsense is a net negative, because the people who respond positively to it were already converts in the first place.

555 , 6 days ago

Normally I would say this damage was inappropriate. But, considering humanity is going to be eradicated in the next hundred years, give or take, I think maybe we should be doing more to slow that down.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

But how will this slow that down?

555 , 6 days ago

The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Obviously humanity is not being squeaky enough. Maybe if enough things are destroyed, The rest of the world will finally pay attention.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

Why do you think "the world" matters? This is mostly the fault of a few corporations and their executives couldn't give less of a shit about what someone does to Stonehenge.

555 , 6 days ago

Oh I don’t think the world matters. In fact, I’m super happy humanity is about to be wiped out of existence. We are all pieces of shit.

But you would think more people would be interested in saving it. A significant portion of humanity is uninterested in hearing about Global warming. Those people need to wake up.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

A significant portion of humanity is uninterested in hearing about Global warming

What is "significant?"

And, again, hearing about it doesn't mean you can do something about it. There's fuck all I can do about it.

Mrs_deWinter , 6 days ago

How do we stop evil corporations? With political action. How do we get political action? Either by voting or collective activism.

There's no solution that doesn't require ourselves to spring into action, even if it's "mostly the fault of a few corporations and their executives".

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

Voting for whom? They're all corrupt, or haven't you noticed? We're living in a global oligarchy.

Also, why on Earth do you think environmental activists pissing people off will help with any sort of collective action?

Mrs_deWinter , 6 days ago

Ah, a doomer. So let me guess, there's nothing we can do and every form of activism is useless?

Just go on with your day then. This protest certainly isn't about you. They didn't hurt you personally, so why not just let them do their thing. The people who believe solutions exist can continue to search for them and you don't have to bother.

Or do you actually have something helpful in mind?

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

I'm not sure why you think I should answer your questions when you won't do me the courtesy of answering mine. That's incredibly rude of you.

Mrs_deWinter , 6 days ago

Your questions seemed rather rhetorical to me. As long as you act on the premise that there's no solution, any conversation about the topic - including this one - is a monumental waste of time. So let's just leave it at that.

tobogganablaze , 6 days ago

How do we stop evil corporations? With political action. How do we get political action? Either by voting or collective activism.

That is true.

But they are doing activism for the wrong side. The conservatives and far right will jump on this one, because they just gotten handed a talking point on a silver platter. "Radical left activists attack cultural heritage site". They couldn't have asked for a more perfect one.

PorradaVFR , 6 days ago

I thought oil was the problem?

Their point is absolutely valid. Their method is absurd. This doesn't generate a dialogue, it undermines the point by enabling opponents to rightfully condemn the vandalism and changes no minds.

Attacking art or culture is counterproductive.

Womble , 6 days ago

FWIW this kind of alarmist talk only lets people write off your comment as hysterical. Humans are not going to go extinct in the next 100 years, Canada isnt going to become hotter than Arabia and become unlivable.

What we might (and even possibly the most likely scenario is to) get is wide scale societal breakdown, starvation of billions, mass migration of billions of those currently living in regions that become uninhabitable but dont starve, and the consequant resource wars that those entail. The future is bleak enough without making up even worse things that wont happen.

555 , 6 days ago

Would you like to make a wager?

Blackbeard , 6 days ago

Yes. One gazillion dollars.

See? See how ridiculous you sound?

555 , 6 days ago

That does sound ridiculous, but it’s your comment not mine.

Blackbeard , 6 days ago

Wanna bet?

555 , 6 days ago

You don’t have any money

Womble , 6 days ago

That a viable population of humans will be alive in 2124? Sure how much do you want to bet? I think your chance of collecting from me if im wrong when im more than 120 years old are slim though.

555 , 6 days ago

1k, put in escrow. Pay out to whomever.

Womble , 5 days ago

Yes thats a sane thing to do, agree to put money in escrow until after im dead. Totally something people do.

Also YOU ARE LITERALLY SAYING EVERYONE WILL BE DEAD THERE WOULD BE NO ONE TO COLLECT

AA5B , 6 days ago

Yet this kind of protests just alienates the protesters from the population they want support from

555 , 6 days ago

They want support from me.

thetreesaysbark , 6 days ago

Many of the recent protests about climate change have been less direct and more about stirring up controversy to force the public to actually think about their decisions.

My hat off to them as so far this style of protest has been working and has resulted in many of us pushing for better climate control.

You're right this isn't going to stop companies, but even if you disagreed with them it puts climate change in your conscious mind. Even if that simply means you'll try to make slightly more climate friendly decisions moving forwards, that's a win.

Personally I don't know if I agree with the technique, but I do feel like it has been working in terms of making people discuss this topic more.

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 6 days ago

My hat off to them as so far this style of protest has been working and has resulted in many of us pushing for better climate control.

I don't know that I believe that is because of these protests and not just seeing what's happening to the world. I really do not see pissing people off by painting Stonehenge, especially when it's during a religious festival, helping this cause.

Blackbeard , 6 days ago (edited 6 days ago)

If a dog urinates into a river which then floods, would you say the dog's urination caused the flood?

My wife works in environmental advocacy, and I can tell you without a shred of doubt that people's opinions are changing on climate change for a lot of different reasons. This ridiculous nonsense isn't one of them.

AA5B , 6 days ago

It’s not the same thing. At least your friend was calling attention to a cause she cared about

FlyingSquid OP Mod , 5 days ago

Much like climate change- who is not aware that there are dogs getting euthanized in shelters?

I don't understand why all of you are talking about raising awareness of something everyone is aware of.

Carrolade , 6 days ago

Here in the US we have one of the two main political factions regularly threatening terrorism, execution and even war.

When people are already arguing to take you out behind the chemical shed and shoot you, it's a little out of touch to think they give two shits about your future health in a changing climate. Or our planet, they probably think they can get to Mars with Elon or something, or god will rapture them, or whatever they think, I don't know.

You think people should care about future generations? They probably should, but we have parents that don't give two shits about their own kids, much less anyone else's.

autotldr Bot , 6 days ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

---

Rishi Sunak condemned the action, saying: “This is a disgraceful act of vandalism to one of the UK’s and the world’s oldest and most important monuments.”

A senior druid and pagan priest, King Arthur Pendragon, said he “totally” disapproved of the Just Stop Oil protest and that the group’s actions “alienate any sympathy” for their cause.

Pendragon, who is standing as an independent parliamentary candidate for the area, said: “Stonehenge is a living, working temple at times of celebration and pilgrimage such as the summer solstice and, as a well-known protester myself, I totally disapprove of such behaviour as demonstrated by these people, who do nothing to enhance and everything to alienate any sympathy anyone has or had for their cause.”

The priest has previously been involved in several protests at the monument and lost a legal challenge over a £15 car parking charge at the site in 2017, claiming the fee breached his human rights.

Mike and Julie, who did not wish to give their surnames and had come from the west coast of the US to visit Stonehenge, said it was a shame the path around the stones was closed after the incident.

In a statement, JSO said it was time for “megalithic action” and called for the next UK government to agree a plan to stop the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030.

---

The original article contains 645 words, the summary contains 230 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!