Just Stop Oil

[NotThatSoph]

From a history of the equal suffrage movement:

When the Labour Party was formed in 1900, Emmeline Pankhurst hoped that they would support votes for women on the same terms as men. This was not the same as supporting full adult suffrage. Pankhurst's proposals were defeated at the Labour Party Conference. After this she left the Party and established the Women's Social and Political Union, or WSPU. Pankhurst and her daughters Christabel and Sylvia were leaders of the newly formed group. Unlike the NUWSS's structure they were unelected as leaders.

Pankhurst decided to restrict membership of the WSPU to women (unlike the NUWSS). Pankhurst argued, in a move away from the NUWSS's tactics, that "deeds, not words", were to be the WSPU's motto. Like the NUWSS, the suffragettes used posters, pamphlets, public meetings and marches in their campaign. The WSPU sold 20,000 copies of their newspaper, Votes for Women, each week.

The WSPU adopted militant, direct action tactics which make the actions of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil seem tame in comparison. The WPSU chained themselves to railings, disrupted public meetings, assault, undertook hunger strikes and caused damage to public property.

In 1913, Emily Davison stepped out in front of the King's horse at the Epsom Derby. Her purpose remains unclear, but she was hit and later died from her injuries.

In the same year, the WPSU burned down the house of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and future Prime Minister, David Lloyd George (who was supportive of women's suffrage).

Suffragettes smashed windows of upscale shops and government offices. They cut telephone lines, spat at police and politicians, cut or burned pro-suffrage slogans into stadium turf, sent letter bombs, destroyed greenhouses at Kew gardens, chained themselves to railings and blew up houses. A doctor was attacked with a rhino whip, and in one case suffragettes rushed the House of Commons. On 18 July 1912 Mary Leigh threw a hatchet at Prime Minister Herbert Asquith.

On 10 March 1914, suffragette Mary Richardson (known as one of the most militant activists, also called "Slasher" Richardson) walked into the National Gallery and attacked Diego Velázquez's painting, Rokeby Venus with a meat cleaver. In 1913 suffragette militancy caused £54,000 worth of damage, £36,000 of which occurred in April alone (over £6m in today’s money).

Suffragettes were arrested and imprisoned but continued their protest in prison by hunger strike. Although initially they were fed by force, in 1913 the Prisoners Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health Act was passed by Parliament. Commonly known as the Cat and Mouse Act, this allowed prison authorities to release hunger-striking women prisoners when they became too weak, and re-arrest them when they had recovered. Emmeline Pankhurst was jailed and released on 11 occasions.

Sometimes things get hidden as the last comment on a page, and people miss it. That's a shame.

 

[VorZakone]

In my experience with young people, it's working. In my mind people who don't like it are people who would never be allies in the first place, so we can't subtract them to the support numbers and they were never there.

In my experience young people were already convinced by the scientific arguments and the fact that they're more likely to have to deal with negative consequences. No disruptive protests needed there.

For others, what I see that they're aware of the science but it's costly to make investments in their own home and they see a lot of hypocricy in rich people not changing their behavior (flying) so why should they be the only ones making sacrifices? And stuff like that. I hardly see the point of disrupting their lives. I really don't see a convincing case there.

But my experience doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. We can debate what the punishment should be but I cannot agree with this blanket excuse given to protesters that "disruption is necessary". We wouldn't give the same excuses to others such as conservatives disrupting women by harrassing them at abortion clinics and things like that.

 

[VorZakone]

Surely these sentences are a result of them all being repeat offenders? Hallam is basically behind JSO, Insulate Britain and linked to Extinction Rebellion and has 13 prior convictions.

So yeah it might be a 5 year sentence but he'll get out in a year, certainly in less than 2 years, and if he goes right back to it, he deserves the maximum again.

I've seen the claim that Hallam has 13 prior convictions but couldn't find a good source.

 

[Flying high]

Protesting quietly gets ignored. As do the countless action and pressure groups which don't force themselves into the limelight.

Protesting peacefully en masse gets the usual suspects proclaiming that unless they all walked to the protest, then they're all hypocritical so should be ignored.

Many different types of protest go on all the time, again mostly ignored, until something hits the news. Then we have people queuing up to say 'not like that!'. Surely their anger at the damage/disruption should be directed at those failing to take action because ordinary people have been driven to these extremes.

The fact is, without groups like these, topics like climate change get the odd run out in the media from time to time, but never build enough to pressure governments or large corporations into making the changes that are so clearly neccesary.

 

[NotChatGPT]

Right, those great and efficient protests that don't bother anyone. Those tend to work pretty well.

Aaand?

 

[maniak]

Aaand?

And disruptive protests are necessary.

 

[maniak]

In my experience young people were already convinced by the scientific arguments and the fact that they're more likely to have to deal with negative consequences. No disruptive protests needed there.

For others, what I see that they're aware of the science but it's costly to make investments in their own home and they see a lot of hypocricy in rich people not changing their behavior (flying) so why should they be the only ones making sacrifices? And stuff like that. I hardly see the point of disrupting their lives. I really don't see a convincing case there.

But my experience doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. We can debate what the punishment should be but I cannot agree with this blanket excuse given to protesters that "disruption is necessary". We wouldn't give the same excuses to others such as conservatives disrupting women by harrassing them at abortion clinics and things like that.

They may be convinces but not acting on it, keeping the topic on the news via protests motivates them to take action.

But as you said, these are just personal experiences, so they're worth and they're worth.

I don't think we can compare blocking a road to harassing women on abortion clinics. But for what is worth I don't want conservatives protesting against immigrants to be arrested either.

 

[dumbo]

Either you believe climate change is as serious as the scientific consensus claims, i.e. a catastrophe getting increasingly catastrophic with every moment of inaction. Or you deny the science. (Or you simply don't give a shit). If you do believe in the severity of the situation, then it surely follows that you accept severe actions must be taken to do everything we can to lessen the impact and to stop those adding to the damage.

These protesters are not Rosa Parks but neither was Rosa Parks. The image of Rosa Parks as the embodiment of responsible, appropriate, just protest is a retrofit. She and her actions were despised and rejected by the establishment and large sections of the public at the time. The Montgomery Bus boycotts were long and hard and caused massive inconvenience to many people, innocent and otherwise.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

This is, quite possibly, the dumbest comment I've ever read.

It was an example of yet another person who's job it is to defend human rights being worried about what's happening in the UK. No one has suggested that she should decide the laws in the UK. Are you not capable of understanding basic words? There is no way for you to read my comment and reasonable interpret that I want the director of a Norwegian government agency to decide British laws.



Once again, this is spectacularly dumb. I'm never surprised to see you defend authoritarianism, but I am surprised to see you struggle so bad with reading. Criticizing the actions of a democratically elected government is not a feck you to democracy or the rule of law. I'm amazed at the fact that I had to write that sentence.

I hope you're pretending and lying for rhetorical effect, in an extremely weird attempt to point score, because holy shit this is bad.

This is, quite possibly, the dumbest comment I've ever read.

It was an example of yet another person who's job it is to defend human rights being worried about what's happening in the UK. No one has suggested that she should decide the laws in the UK. Are you not capable of understanding basic words? There is no way for you to read my comment and reasonable interpret that I want the director of a Norwegian government agency to decide British laws.



Once again, this is spectacularly dumb. I'm never surprised to see you defend authoritarianism, but I am surprised to see you struggle so bad with reading. Criticizing the actions of a democratically elected government is not a feck you to democracy or the rule of law. I'm amazed at the fact that I had to write that sentence.

I hope you're pretending and lying for rhetorical effect, in an extremely weird attempt to point score, because holy shit this is bad.

Bullshit and strawmen as always from you. You have to be the most disingenuous poster on Redcafe.

"It was an example of yet another person who's job it is to defend human rights being worried about what's happening in the UK."

No, its a random person, with whom you agree who has no stake in the UK telling you what you want to hear.

Lap it up, its meaningless froth, as useless and wrong as most of your ideas.

 

[berbatrick]

@Don't Kill Bill still waiting

What calculations will you use for the eye-for-an-eye punishments for the .... disruption casued by global warming? Will individuals be liable for their emissions, will it be oil CEOs, or prime ministers?

Will it shooting enough drivers to equal the number of deaths by flooding and starvation? Or community service for oil CEOs who are held responsible for a few hundred thousand deaths?
Or is delayed work less serious than climate change? Really curious where your logic of perfectly symmetric punishment takes you!

 

[Abizzz]

Yes, I've read the whole topic and I'd say you are one of the rare exceptions in terms of what you do.

Mind you, I didn't voice any opinion on the protests themselves. I also understand this topic is about the JSO's actions, not so much about their goals, but I find it mind-boggling just how little people care.

It really does come down to the question of how seriously the climate threat change is perceived by individuals. I have a feeling that too many people still believe that climate change will be solved, either by itself, or by human intervention, with our lifestyles not being inconvenienced even in the slightest. This is probably a generalisation, but that is just a vibe that some of these posts give me. For those who believe we will get through this without being inconvenienced whatsoever, JSO's actions are completely unacceptable.

I don't really think JSO is going to be the worst of eco-terrorism though. As situation gets worse, I predict much worse action from different groups around the world.

For me it is not about inconveniencing people. It is about forcing your opinion onto others regardless of costs that is unacceptable. People who campaign against abortion are 100% as certain of their righteousness as some of the JSO defenders in here. Should we accept them bringing hospitals to halt, even just abortion clinics, because of their complete conviction to stop what they see as murder? Should people convinced that our society is falling apart because of drink and gambling be allowed to organize to stop all top level football matches?

Actually those are bad examples... those actions would actually affect the topic they care about.

I did originally say that I thought the length of sentencing is harsh, and still stand by that. I would be a lot more understanding had they blocked coal trains going into power stations or petrol trucks leaving a refinery though.

 

[Stack]

In my experience young people were already convinced by the scientific arguments and the fact that they're more likely to have to deal with negative consequences. No disruptive protests needed there.

For others, what I see that they're aware of the science but it's costly to make investments in their own home and they see a lot of hypocricy in rich people not changing their behavior (flying) so why should they be the only ones making sacrifices? And stuff like that. I hardly see the point of disrupting their lives. I really don't see a convincing case there.

But my experience doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. We can debate what the punishment should be but I cannot agree with this blanket excuse given to protesters that "disruption is necessary". We wouldn't give the same excuses to others such as conservatives disrupting women by harrassing them at abortion clinics and things like that.

The disruptive protests arent anything to do with convincing the young people already convinced, they are borne out of massive frustration that change is happening so slowly and that my generation (older) dont seem to give two fecks. Young people such as school children shouldnt be out protesting about climate change. They shouldnt be out there protesting not because they should be in school or any other banal excuse, they shouldnt be out there because we should be instead of them.
Convincing people isnt the reason JSO exist, frustration at the slow progress is.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Bullshit and strawmen as always from you. You have to be the most disingenuous poster on Redcafe.

"It was an example of yet another person who's job it is to defend human rights being worried about what's happening in the UK."

No, its a random person, with whom you agree who has no stake in the UK telling you what you want to hear.

Lap it up, its meaningless froth, as useless and wrong as most of your ideas.

A strawman is a logically fallacious argument. There is not a singular argument in the comment you responded to, and a non-argument obviously can't be a fallacious argument.

I am actually pretty amazed at what you've been saying in this thread. You're usually pretty coherent, I think, but this is quite unhinged.

 

[dumbo]

Yes! this very obviously does require one to make a judgement on the righteousness of the cause at hand.

The scientific concensus states that the situation is dire, is getting worse and that all action up to now has been utterly insufficient. If you accept this scientific consensus then how can you not understand an increase in the seriousness of protests against climate change. If you deny the scientific consensus, well then argue that point honestly.

If you want to argue that abortion protesters shutting down hospitals is just or that the Ku Klux Klan marching with nooses are righteous in their actions then do so but don't hide behind these examples and use them as some spurious cowardly moral relativist argument.

 

[Abizzz]

Yes! this very obviously does require one to make a judgement on the righteousness of the cause at hand.

The scientific concensus states that the situation is dire, is getting worse and that all action up to now has been utterly insufficient. If you accept this scientific consensus then how can you not understand an increase in the seriousness of protests against climate change. If you deny the scientific consensus, well then argue that point honestly.

If you want to argue that abortion protesters shutting down hospitals is just or that the Ku Klux Klan marching with nooses are righteous in their actions then do so but don't hide behind these examples and use them as some spurious cowardly moral relativist argument.

I do accept the scientific consensus and am as worried about climate change as I can reasonably be without jumping of the next cliff. I actually do things about what I can influence and do not see these people as contributing to the most important cause humanity have ever collectively faced.

But saying that I agree with one sentence of the judgement triggers some peoples fascism spasms. Saying that other people are as convinced of their causes let's you bring up nooses and the KKK. The feck am I discussing here? Feck this.

 

[NotChatGPT]

And disruptive protests are necessary.

Every knob with a different idea about how society should be run can’t simply turn to disruptive protests just because not enough people are actually interested.

And disruptive protests aren’t necessary to implement changes that are good for the environment, we’ve seen plenty of major political decisions on the basis of what voters actually want implemented.

“Oh, our opinion is superior and so important that we have the right to block highways, prevent planes from taking off, whatnot”. No the feck it isn’t and no the feck you don’t.

 

[NotChatGPT]

The disruptive protests arent anything to do with convincing the young people already convinced, they are borne out of massive frustration that change is happening so slowly and that my generation (older) dont seem to give two fecks. Young people such as school children shouldnt be out protesting about climate change. They shouldnt be out there protesting not because they should be in school or any other banal excuse, they shouldnt be out there because we should be instead of them.
Convincing people isnt the reason JSO exist, frustration at the slow progress is.

Forcing a process that is going to rely heavily on technology isn’t just isn’t the answer, which should be rather evident by Germany and large parts of Europe making themselves dependent on Russian oil and gas, and the consequences of those actions both short term and long term. We’ve gone from an investment cycle into green energy to creating a massive new cycle of huge investments into oil and gas, while investments in green energy is looked at as expensive and not something that will generate income. Brilliant that. Congratulations.

Change also needs to be made on a global scale, not locally. It should also be evident that things change quickly and political landscapes change. The full scale invasion of Ukraine, the potential consequences of the 2024 US elections. Countries like India benefitting from cheap Russian oil. We’re completely dependent on a global co-operation and agreement, yet plenty would indicate we’re heading in a direction where that’s increasingly difficult to achieve. Securing energy supply, resources in general, is becoming more and more important.

 

[Stack]

Forcing a process that is going to rely heavily on technology isn’t just isn’t the answer, which should be rather evident by Germany and large parts of Europe making themselves dependent on Russian oil and gas, and the consequences of those actions both short term and long term. We’ve gone from an investment cycle into green energy to creating a massive new cycle of huge investments into oil and gas, while investments in green energy is looked at as expensive and not something that will generate income. Brilliant that. Congratulations.

Change also needs to be made on a global scale, not locally. It should also be evident that things change quickly and political landscapes change. The full scale invasion of Ukraine, the potential consequences of the 2024 US elections. Countries like India benefitting from cheap Russian oil. We’re completely dependent on a global co-operation and agreement, yet plenty would indicate we’re heading in a direction where that’s increasingly difficult to achieve. Securing energy supply, resources in general, is becoming more and more important.

You make my point for me

 

[maniak]

Every knob with a different idea about how society should be run can’t simply turn to disruptive protests just because not enough people are actually interested.

And disruptive protests aren’t necessary to implement changes that are good for the environment, we’ve seen plenty of major political decisions on the basis of what voters actually want implemented.

“Oh, our opinion is superior and so important that we have the right to block highways, prevent planes from taking off, whatnot”. No the feck it isn’t and no the feck you don’t.

I disagree, history shows that disruption is the main drive of societal change.

And people protesting and being disruptive is the sign of a healthy free society. Sending people to jail for protesting and being disruptive is the sign of a repressive society.

 

[NotThatSoph]

A few people here have argued approvingly for long sentences based on total amount of time lost for everyone involved. Specifically, because the protests apparently wasted five years if you add up the time of everyone stuck in queue for a bit, five years is fair.

In Norway you currently see regular protests about VAR. The new thing is to throw tennis balls onto the field. Say that happened at Old Trafford, and we do some rough estimating: average attendance 73-74k, average TV audience around 1.5m, roughly 1.6 million people involved. Say it takes 10 minutes to stop the match, wait for the throwing to be over, clean it up and start over.

That's 30 years in jail for anyone organizing the throwing of some tennis balls. What a system, not super dumb at all.

An update to this: yesterday these protests for the first time got a game postponed, rather than just stopped for a bit. Everyone had to leave the stadium, and the game will be replayed at a later date. Maybe comboing some fish with the tennis balls was the deciding factor.

Reading the comments in the tabloids is quite interesting. For reference, these tend to be very Daily Mail-esque, and they usually don't allow comments under articles about issues such as immigration because it gets too far right and racist , with too much violent rhetoric.

They're very displeased with the protests, and the arguments are pretty much 1:1 with the anti-protest arguments you read here on Redcafe, but none of them are psychopathic enough to even mention prison.

 

[Tarrou]

even my old man who’s got full scale Fox News brain at this point thought the sentence was draconian

 

[Ultimate Grib]

Millions in economic damage, people missing surgeries and cancer appointments, collisions on M25 why should they get a slap on the wrist for causing havoc?

They were sentenced in accordance with the law and that's what they wanted, to become martyrs and further their cause by people talking about their sentence.

 

[Superden]

Millions in economic damage, people missing surgeries and cancer appointments, collisions on M25 why should they get a slap on the wrist for causing havoc?

They were sentenced in accordance with the law and that's what they wanted, to become martyrs and further their cause by people talking about their sentence.

should all the UK based execs at the offices of Crowdstrike and Microsoft also get lenghty jail sentences too? or how about BT which has just been fined 17 million for not managing the 999 call system properly and over 14,000 calls to 999 werent answered after an outage, how many of their senior execs go to jail?

 

[The Boy]

Millions in economic damage, people missing surgeries and cancer appointments, collisions on M25 why should they get a slap on the wrist for causing havoc?

They were sentenced in accordance with the law and that's what they wanted, to become martyrs and further their cause by people talking about their sentence.

It's not really millions of economic damage. They've cost the Met Police a few million to police their marches and clear them off the motorway, but football fans do that every weekend across the country despite the contribution from the clubs. The prosecution in the case alleged that the M25 protest cost about 3/4 of a million in economic damage by delayed driver hours, but road works across the UK motorway system do that every day as well.

Yes a policeman fell off his motorbike and one lorry went into the back of another one, but other protests in the UK have caused far more damage to people and property without this kind of sentence.

Though in a way I'm glad the sentences were big as once again it forces the word climate into the news and helps to break the delusion of normalcy that the vast majority of people in the western world are living under while the climate emergency accelerates.

Just Stop Oil will be on the right side of history, at least they're trying to do something and love or hate them they're protests get climate into the news.

Last year saw unprecedented rises in sea and land temperatures, unprecedented rises in CO2 in the atmosphere, heat relief camps and school closures in many countries, the prospect of unliveable cities (just google Kuwait City) and death and destruction across the globe from wildfires, drought, storms and flooding. All the while our politicians, our media and a lot of the general population pretty much ignore it, this mass delusion is intolerable.

Against that some people missed important health appointments, exams and flights (I was one of those!) etc which is horrible on a personal level, but pales into insignificance against the bigger issue.

 

[Tarrou]

Millions in economic damage, people missing surgeries and cancer appointments, collisions on M25 why should they get a slap on the wrist for causing havoc?

They were sentenced in accordance with the law and that's what they wanted, to become martyrs and further their cause by people talking about their sentence.

if only we had a justice system that had something in between a slap on the wrist and years in jail

 

[nickm]

Just Stop Oil will be on the right side of history, at least they're trying to do something and love or hate them they're protests get climate into the news.

OK, if your argument is about the PR value of their actions, then let's also talk about the effectiveness of (a) pissing off the very public they need to persuade (b) choosing the softest possible targets. It's not exactly the Rainbow Warrior sailing into various nuclear testing sites or Swampy digging himself into a tunnel is it - people disagreed with that but they could still respect the action they were taking. PR isn't just about getting into the papers, any child can do that. Its about persuasion.

 

[Samid]

It's not really millions of economic damage. They've cost the Met Police a few million to police their marches and clear them off the motorway, but football fans do that every weekend across the country despite the contribution from the clubs. The prosecution in the case alleged that the M25 protest cost about 3/4 of a million in economic damage by delayed driver hours, but road works across the UK motorway system do that every day as well.

Yes a policeman fell off his motorbike and one lorry went into the back of another one, but other protests in the UK have caused far more damage to people and property without this kind of sentence.

Though in a way I'm glad the sentences were big as once again it forces the word climate into the news and helps to break the delusion of normalcy that the vast majority of people in the western world are living under while the climate emergency accelerates.

Just Stop Oil will be on the right side of history, at least they're trying to do something and love or hate them they're protests get climate into the news.

Last year saw unprecedented rises in sea and land temperatures, unprecedented rises in CO2 in the atmosphere, heat relief camps and school closures in many countries, the prospect of unliveable cities (just google Kuwait City) and death and destruction across the globe from wildfires, drought, storms and flooding. All the while our politicians, our media and a lot of the general population pretty much ignore it, this mass delusion is intolerable.

Against that some people missed important health appointments, exams and flights (I was one of those!) etc which is horrible on a personal level, but pales into insignificance against the bigger issue.

So according to you today is insignificant compared to tomorrow. You can just extend that logic and tomorrow is equally insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Your logic basically promotes a nihilistic viewpoint where nothing actually matters.

 

[NotThatSoph]

So according to you today is insignificant compared to tomorrow. You can just extend that logic and tomorrow is equally insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Your logic basically promotes a nihilistic viewpoint where nothing actually matters.

@Don't Kill Bill this is what a "strawman" is, if you want to learn for next time.

@The Boy is arguing that the consequences of the protest are insignificant compared to the consequences of what society is trying to prevent; the future consequences of climate change. @Samid is swapping that out for a much weaker claim that @The Boy never used, and no reasonable person could interpret them as using, namely that today is insignificant compared to tomorrow.

Of course, being a fallacy hunter is pretty lame no matter if you get it right or wrong, and it's always better to actually explain what's wrong with the reasoning rather than naming fallacies. You're much less likely to get it wrong that way as well, because you have to use your words.

 

[Red in STL]

should all the UK based execs at the offices of Crowdstrike and Microsoft also get lenghty jail sentences too? or how about BT which has just been fined 17 million for not managing the 999 call system properly and over 14,000 calls to 999 werent answered after an outage, how many of their senior execs go to jail?

Nope, they might be incompetent but their actions or lack of action were not deliberate

 

[AfonsoAlves]

should all the UK based execs at the offices of Crowdstrike and Microsoft also get lenghty jail sentences too? or how about BT which has just been fined 17 million for not managing the 999 call system properly and over 14,000 calls to 999 werent answered after an outage, how many of their senior execs go to jail?

What the heck is this comparison?

One is willfull disruption with full intent to disrupt, the other was an engineering mistake due to poorly designed CI/CD architecture and bad engineering practices caused by human error.

How are the two remotely comparable?

 

[Samid]

@Don't Kill Bill this is what a "strawman" is, if you want to learn for next time.

@The Boy is arguing that the consequences of the protest are insignificant compared to the consequences of what society is trying to prevent; the future consequences of climate change. @Samid is swapping that out for a much weaker claim that @The Boy never used, and no reasonable person could interpret them as using, namely that today is insignificant compared to tomorrow.

Of course, being a fallacy hunter is pretty lame no matter if you get it right or wrong, and it's always better to actually explain what's wrong with the reasoning rather than naming fallacies. You're much less likely to get it wrong that way as well, because you have to use your words.

If you want the definition of strawman, no reason to look beyond this:

A few people here have argued approvingly for long sentences based on total amount of time lost for everyone involved. Specifically, because the protests apparently wasted five years if you add up the time of everyone stuck in queue for a bit, five years is fair.

In Norway you currently see regular protests about VAR. The new thing is to throw tennis balls onto the field. Say that happened at Old Trafford, and we do some rough estimating: average attendance 73-74k, average TV audience around 1.5m, roughly 1.6 million people involved. Say it takes 10 minutes to stop the match, wait for the throwing to be over, clean it up and start over.

That's 30 years in jail for anyone organizing the throwing of some tennis balls. What a system, not super dumb at all.

 

[The Boy]

So according to you today is insignificant compared to tomorrow. You can just extend that logic and tomorrow is equally insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Your logic basically promotes a nihilistic viewpoint where nothing actually matters.

What a weird interpretation of my post.

 

[The Boy]

OK, if your argument is about the PR value of their actions, then let's also talk about the effectiveness of (a) pissing off the very public they need to persuade (b) choosing the softest possible targets. It's not exactly the Rainbow Warrior sailing into various nuclear testing sites or Swampy digging himself into a tunnel is it - people disagreed with that but they could still respect the action they were taking. PR isn't just about getting into the papers, any child can do that. Its about persuasion.

They're not dissuading anyone who is already committed to climate policy and as they state their ultimate aim is to persuade governments rather than people. This isn't a protest to get you to recycle your Ribena bottle or turn your heating down by a couple of degrees, but to cause mass disruption to get the government to change its policy on North Sea Oil and with the new government it seems to have worked.

 

[NotThatSoph]

If you want the definition of strawman, no reason to look beyond this:

Nope. Here's where you'd benefit from using your words as well, because if you had to explain how you'd get lost quickly and hopefully re-evaluate.

You actually somewhat tried that last time, when you cited some things that were more serious than just losing a few minutes. Remember when I asked you how you thought they arrived at that 51k hours number, if they just counted people in a hurry? That was supposed to help you. The obvious answer is no, that number is for every minute lost, no matter what. Most of that number is made up of people who were just stuck in queue for a few minutes, with no actual consequence or cost at all. Therefore, specifically for those two or three people who used that number as a justification for the long sentences (not you, for instance), that is the bar, and that would count people waiting for a game to restart.

I thought you realized this, because it's so obvious, and that's why you didn't reply any further. Apparently not, I overestimated you.

 

[Flying high]

Nope, they might be incompetent but their actions or lack of action were not deliberate

They deliberately chose to cut corners to save money. Senior execs absolutely should face jail time when they make such damaging decisions due to greed.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

They deliberately chose to cut corners to save money. Senior execs absolutely should face jail time when they make such damaging decisions due to greed.

Engineering faults are not due to cutting corners to save money. No software or hardware in the world is bug proof or edge-case proof, edge cases are infinite. This is a ridiculous comparison.

You're basically saying people should go to jail because Engineers didn't think of every single weird 0.001% chance of a real life scenario occurring. Jesus.

There's a season where the SLA's of even Google/Amazon/Apple for Service availability is 99.99%. Because nobody is history has reached 100% on a year by year service uptime.

 

[Revan]

They deliberately chose to cut corners to save money. Senior execs absolutely should face jail time when they make such damaging decisions due to greed.

Tell me you know nothing about coding without telling me you know nothing about coding post.

 

[Flying high]

Engineering faults are not due to cutting corners to save money. No software or hardware in the world is bug proof or edge-case proof, edge cases are infinite. This is a ridiculous comparison.

You're basically saying people should go to jail because Engineers didn't think of every single weird 0.001% chance of a real life scenario occurring. Jesus.

There's a season where the SLA's of even Google/Amazon/Apple for Service availability is 99.99%. Because nobody is history has reached 100% on a year by year service uptime.

A staggered roll out, or improved testing could absolutely have reduced the impact of that particular problem.

 

[Samid]

What a weird interpretation of my post.

It’s not though.

Against that some people missed important health appointments, exams and flights (I was one of those!) etc which is horrible on a personal level, but pales into insignificance against the bigger issue.

If fanatics blocking roads for days and causing huge misery for regular people pales into insignificance against the bigger issue (climate changes), then it’s only fair to take that logic one step further. Climate changes pale into insignificance against the even bigger issues (like all of this ceasing to exist one day).

There will always be a bigger issue. Disrupting the lives of tens of thousands for every 'bigger issue' is not the solution.

 

[Flying high]

Tell me you know nothing about coding without telling me you know nothing about coding post.

I'm no expert that's for sure, but like I said above, a staggered roll out to see if any unforseen problems show up is pretty much industry standard for such large companies. Not doing so seems like a risk. Or, to put it another way, a corner cut.