Just Stop Oil

redcucumber said:
Yep, definitely needless. We're absolutely nailing the climate issue. What did disruption and disturbance ever achieve?
Click to expand...
So we can send em round to your place to vandalise your stuff then?
There are ways and means to create change, throwing gunk onto a painting isn’t one of them, in my opinion of course.
 
redcucumber said:
Yep, definitely needless. We're absolutely nailing the climate issue. What did disruption and disturbance ever achieve?
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the climate issue has been solved due to the art damage. They should be given a medal for saving the world.
 
redcucumber said:
Yep, definitely needless. We're absolutely nailing the climate issue. What did disruption and disturbance ever achieve?
Click to expand...
It's just not making any sort of a point or making people think at all. I'm all for eco friendly policies, but these guys hurt the eco friendly movement.
 
Ole'sgunnarwin said:
Ah yes, the climate issue has been solved due to the art damage. They should be given a medal for saving the world.
Click to expand...
There's protests pretty much every day, and no-one is aware of them. the whole point is to get in the news, and it's working.

I take it you've been reading the front page stories for the National Rejoin march today, and the Let Women speak protest tomorrow?
 
Balljy said:
There's protests pretty much every day, and no-one is aware of them. the whole point is to get in the news, and it's working.

I take it you've been reading the front page stories for the National Rejoin march today, and the Let Women speak protest tomorrow?
Click to expand...

Ah, so the whole point is to get in the news. That explains a lot
 
I don't understand why protesters can't just protest from their own home while not disturbing anyone else or causing any form of disruption to anything. I think that would greatly help their cause, because oil companies and governments will think, gee, they're so nice, we'll just give them what they want.

Societal change is always forced by accepting the status quo and hoping for change.
 
Red_toad said:
So we can send em round to your place to vandalise your stuff then?
There are ways and means to create change, throwing gunk onto a painting isn’t one of them, in my opinion of course.
Click to expand...
What an odd thing to say. If sending them round to a member of the public's house and vandalising it means we get jog on with climate change, then sure. I nominate mine if that's an issue?


But it's a weird point because attacking someone's house will do nothing, whereas these are attacks on establishment no?
 
horsechoker said:
What should they do instead?
Click to expand...
Not do things to a great cultural item that might make it harder for ordinary people to get to see it, in future, for starters.

It's not as if these protests are necessary because of a lack of democratic ways of expressing their views, is it?
 
Destroying the environment ? That's fine. Destroying a picture frame? Outrageous.
 
nickm said:
Not do things to a great cultural item that might make it harder for ordinary people to get to see it, in future, for starters.

It's not as if these protests are necessary because of a lack of democratic ways of expressing their views, is it?
Click to expand...
Do you think that nobody has tried to change things in democratic ways already?
 
horsechoker said:
Do you think that nobody has tried to change things in democratic ways already?
Click to expand...
What about my first point?

I don't think it is right that these activists are supposed to get a free pass on vandalism that could easily make it harder for the public to see great art in future, just because everyone agrees with their cause.
 
hobbers said:
Are art galleries, sports events or gridlocking roads attacks on the establishment?

if they attacked enough houses they'd get in the news, and still achieve nothing except getting in the news.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree with every word of this
 
hobbers said:
Yeh, and the normal democratic ways achieved a labour government pledging no more north sea drilling licences...
Click to expand...
They don't go far enough and it's only happened because of raising awareness of these issues by various groups throughout the years.

Segragation didn't end because Rosa Parks refused to sit in a different seat.
 
horsechoker said:
They don't go far enough and it's only happened because of raising awareness of these issues by various groups throughout the years.

Segragation didn't end because Rosa Parks refused to sit in a different seat.
Click to expand...
How far would you like them to go?
 
hobbers said:
Are art galleries, sports events or gridlocking roads attacks on the establishment?

if they attacked enough houses they'd get in the news, and still achieve nothing except getting in the news.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
VorZakone said:
How far would you like them to go?
Click to expand...
I'll draw the line at hurting random members of the public or terrorism.

Explain how they should do it properly.

How do they change things democratically when people don't vote en masse for parties who will put the environment first?

A lot of people just want them to resolve the problems quietly without disrupting their life in any way, I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that.
 
NotChatGPT said:
Ah, so the whole point is to get in the news. That explains a lot
Click to expand...
That's generally how it works yes, that and the likes of X which is also full of this debate. There's not much point in protests if the protest isn't seen.
 
horsechoker said:
I'll draw the line at hurting random members of the public or terrorism.

Explain how they should do it properly.

How do they change things democratically when people don't vote en masse for parties who will put the environment first?

A lot of people just want them to resolve the problems quietly without disrupting their life in any way, I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that.
Click to expand...
What I find interesting is the notion that the public must share your view and if they don't, we'll go and try to continously disrupt their lives to the degree that we can. Sort of "beatings will continue until morale improves".

But on a more serious note, here's my specific issue with how climate activists and this side of the political left have approached the issue.
  • On the one hand we have the rhetoric of people being poor and not being able to afford groceries, rent, energy bills etc.
  • On the other hand there is this sort of expectation that people must pay for measures to make their homes or lives more sustainable. Where I live people generally don't mind stepping away from gas to heat their homes but the alternative is really expensive. You're not doing these people a favour by blocking some road when they're driving to work.
Another thing that's going on is you have some more wealthier voices who will have big talk about how we should fight climate change but then they themselves do nothing to change their lifestyle. They aren't flying less or whatever. Some parts of the public have this perception that they're being lectured while these prominent voices are themselves hypocritical. Sort of like politicians having parties and whatnot during the pandemic while lecturing the public.

But I would say that fundamentally, for me, I think they just argue the case not well enough. Recently I was watching a local talk show that had a couple of climate activists as guests and they just didn't sell it good enough. Instead they came across as pretentious and entitled and again, an air of "I'll lecture you".

I think raising awareness is perfectly fine but I just don't agree (yet) that "nothing has worked". I think these routes should receive more emphasis.
  • There is a legitimate national security argument. Let's decrease our dependence on foreign energy and move to reneweables etc.
  • Target the taxpayers. Tell them that unless we fight climate change, your tax money will have to be increasingly used to fund measures to protect us from disasters caused by climate change. Don't want to spend more on protection from floods? Tough luck, pal.
  • Emphasize subsidies. Acknowledge that the transition is costly for people but we'll help you out with subsidies and we'll make sure applying for them is an easy process. I think there's still too much bureaucracy there.
And I might forget other arguments to use. The counter-argument will be "all of that is already done!" but I'll stand by my view that it's not carried out good enough.

In the meantime, feel free to disrupt people's lives and if you think that method will work, then go for it. I think there's better methods but I won't pretend I'm right on it.
 
horsechoker said:
I'll draw the line at hurting random members of the public or terrorism.

Explain how they should do it properly.

How do they change things democratically when people don't vote en masse for parties who will put the environment first?

A lot of people just want them to resolve the problems quietly without disrupting their life in any way, I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that.
Click to expand...
Are these protests actually changing anything, though? Or just alienating potential allies, thereby hurting the climate cause?

It amazes me that people can be so outraged that people are punished for breaking the law.
 
Jev said:
Are these protests actually changing anything, though? Or just alienating potential allies, thereby hurting the climate movement?

It amazes me that people can be so outraged that people are punished for breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Is it really a strange concept to you that some people disagree strongly with some laws? If so, that's one of the weirdest things I've ever encountered.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Is it really a strange concept to you that some people disagree strongly with some laws? If so, that's one of the weirdest things I've ever encountered.
Click to expand...
Does anyone disagree with the law saying you shouldn’t be allowed to vandalize valuable items you do not own?
 
Jev said:
Does anyone disagree with the law saying you shouldn’t be allowed to vandalize valuable items you do not own?
Click to expand...

Like the environment, or do you lay claim to the air?
 
Jev said:
Does anyone disagree with the law saying you shouldn’t be allowed to vandalize valuable items you do not own?
Click to expand...

People have very specifically reacted to the fact that they got two years in jail. The length of time is obviously the problem people have with it. I wouldn't have to spell this out to a 10 year old, why are you making me do it to you? I know you understand it, because it's literally impossible for you not to, so what's with the act?

First you do an insane generalization, where you frame it as people being "outraged that people are punished for breaking the law", and then you try to paint it as people arguing it should be legal. Imagine someone got sentenced to 10 years for stealing a bar of chocolate, and you piped up saying that's probably a bit too much. If I then went "I can't believe people are outraged that people are punished for breaking the law", and "what, do people think shoplifiting should be legal?", then you'd probably think I was being very dumb, right?
 
Ekkie Thump said:
how did cold soup cause £10k damage to the frame?
Click to expand...
Presumably liquids and antique wooden frames don't mix well. It likely had gold leaf on too or some form of gilding that may have been damaged.
They're exquisitely carved and probably quite fragile.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Like the environment, or do you lay claim to the air?
Click to expand...
So essentially what you’re arguing is that we shouldn’t have equality before the law? Climate activists should be allowed to use measures we wouldn’t tolerate from other groups? Is that a society you want to live in?
 
NotThatSoph said:
People have very specifically reacted to the fact that they got two years in jail. The length of time is obviously the problem people have with it. I wouldn't have to spell this out to a 10 year old, why are you making me do it to you? I know you understand it, because it's literally impossible for you not to, so what's with the act?

First you do an insane generalization, where you frame it as people being "outraged that people are punished for breaking the law", and then you try to paint it as people arguing it should be legal. Imagine someone got sentenced to 10 years for stealing a bar of chocolate, and you piped up saying that's probably a bit too much. If I then went "I can't believe people are outraged that people are punished for breaking the law", and "what, do people think shoplifiting should be legal?", then you'd probably think I was being very dumb, right?
Click to expand...
But are there statistics or precedence suggesting climate activists are punished harder than others for the same crimes? That’s a genuine question, I don’t know the answer, but would understand the reactions if that was the case.
 
Jev said:
But are there statistics or precedence suggesting climate activists are punished harder than others for the same crimes? That’s a genuine question, I don’t know the answer, but would understand the reactions if that was the case.
Click to expand...

That would only matter if the people disagreeing with this sentence would be fine with it if they did it for any other reason.

To continue with the chocolate bar, we're now at "is stealing a chocolate bar punished harder than stealing a pack of gum? If so I would understand".
 
NotThatSoph said:
That would only matter if the people disagreeing with this sentence would be fine with it if they did it for any other reason.

To continue with the chocolate bar, we're now at "is stealing a chocolate bar punished harder than stealing a pack of gum? If so I would understand".
Click to expand...
The only part of that post I really understood was your arrogance. Why would it not be relevant to this discussion whether punishments for climate activism are harder than in similar cases or on par?
 
Last edited:
Jev said:
So essentially what you’re arguing is that we shouldn’t have equality before the law? Climate activists should be allowed to use measures we wouldn’t tolerate from other groups? Is that a society you want to live in?
Click to expand...

I want to live in a society where future generations won't have to increasingly struggle for existence in a world beset by famine and thirst.

Against that backdrop I find folk chucking some soup at the glass front of a protected picture fairly small beer. I don't disagree that they should face the same punishment as anyone else - that's part of the deal - but please point me towards this Utopia where all are equal before the law. I mean just this summer one bloke got a similar sentence for dumping 12,000 tonnes of waste (including asbestos) on public land. In January another bloke was fined £1,350 for illegally felling a copse of 50 trees 50 year old trees after being jailed for a year for the different offence of causing what the Environment Agency and Natural England called "the worst riverside destruction" the agencies had ever seen.

It's my opinion that these Just Stop Oil protestors aren't just being prosecuted for their acts, but also because their motives are political.
 
Last edited:
Jev said:
The only part of that post I really understood was your arrogance. Why would it not be relevant to this discussion whether punishments for climate activism is harder than in similar cases or on par?
Click to expand...

Because if people's issue with the sentence is how harsh it is, not how harsh it is for climate activists specifically, then ...
 
Jippy said:
Presumably liquids and antique wooden frames don't mix well. It likely had gold leaf on too or some form of gilding that may have been damaged.
They're exquisitely carved and probably quite fragile.
Click to expand...

Yeah maybe, I'm certainly not an expert. Just feels like a high ball estimate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.