Mainly because I’m a massive pedant. But also because provenance is important. Occasionally eating meat that has been farmed locally, in a sustainable way, is less damaging for the planet than eating McSoyBurgers.
Just Stop Oil
- Thread starter Port Vale Devil
- Start date
Mainly because I’m a massive pedant. But also because provenance is important. Occasionally eating meat that has been farmed locally, in a sustainable way, is less damaging for the planet than eating McSoyBurgers.
The suffragettes bombed the home secretary's office and a theatre. They also invented the idea of a letter bomb. They killed 5 people.
Protest, by definition, is meant to be inconvenient. But just stop oil are unbelievably polite and mild in what they do.
The suffragettes are seen as heroes in historic context. In 30 years, when large parts of africa and south east asia are uninhabitable due to heat and 3 billion people head westwards to survive, JSO will be seen in the same light.
I highly doubt it. If anything they will be seen as a fringe group that highlighted a issue that had been known for 50 years and in the wider public for at least 20 years by annoying the hell out of everyone. Just stop oil has nothing to do with suffragettes and I find any links made as tedious as any links made to say, abortion clinic protests.
Actually as much as I despise them I think the antiabortionists are a lot more successful, looking at reality and all
I realize that very well. Check who are the main consumers of these crops. Spoiler: it's the animal farming industry. Because guess what pigs, cows, sheep, goats and chicken eat?
This is a bit misleading.
The worst crops environmentally tend to be corn, almonds, avocado and soy beans. Corn, almonds and avocados are hardly exclusively vegan and the vast majority of soy beans grown across the globe are used for cattle feed.
The one thing that is right though is that we all need to realise that industrial farming practices have an enormous detrimental impact on any environment.
The difference here is that climate change/stopping the use of oil isn't a purely socio-political issue, or at least one where one government's thinking can entirely alter outcomes.
Stopping the use of oil/gas requires a type of geopolitical alignment we've arguably never seen, and made more unlikely today given the fractured international arena compared to 2 years ago.
I am completely behind JSO's aims and supportive of some of their tactics, but I don't think this issue is equatable to other social movements.
Compared to what?
Agreed. The fact we're destroying our planet sucks, but not nearly as much as me being 5 minutes late and as a result missing my morning coffee.
Cnuts.
I bet they flush their toilets as well. Fecking hypocrits.
Cnuts.
I bet they flush their toilets as well. Fecking hypocrits.
They need to look at the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks simply sat in a different seat and Martin Luther King said he had a dream and just like that racism was ended. There was no stopping traffic, no making people late.
I disagree. Meat is murder, ban abortion, ban nukes, anti vax, stop the war, end capitalism etc etc etc.
People have a right to withdraw their labour. Breaking the law because you don't get your own way/mob rule, is terrible idea.
I mean MLK was clearly known for sitting in front of traffic not for writing speeches that influenced peoples minds...
What this affirmation is based on?
Because as far as i know, producing 1 kilo of meat occupies much more terrain and spends much more water than a equivalent veggie like beans with a similar energy and protein results
You probably find something that might be outrageous on vegan products. Like all extremes. Sure you can find the same for meats in extreme cases. But in average that is not the case at all
The same of "that case of a vegan" that is getting sick because of his/her diet...sure, but do people know the amount of many more people tvat has health issues for animal products? If you dont have a balanced diet, it doesnt matter the origin.
This kind of claims are similar to the ones that EV are more contaminants than gas motor cars. When you go in depths on eberhy origin, transportation of it and power engine yield, there is no contest
But that is not true
Hate this argument.
Yes you're right - however compared to the meat industry etc it's far better.
The Selma marches never caused any road disruptions, all the public were on side and they got free ice cream at the end.
What the bleeding feck are some of you lot talking about.
What the bleeding feck are some of you lot talking about.
It's funny how people invent posts to vent against.
I find this adoption of the civil rights cause for all sorts of other causes disgusting and can only explain it by a lack of knowledge what it was actually about (If i'm trying to be nice). One part of society suppressing another part of society is something entirely different than the consequences of all our actions hurting everybody. As different as the actions and consequences these people face to the consequences those fighting inequality faced back then. But go tell yourself that you are the new MLK, the new Rosa Parks. I'm sure that'll fix it.
I find this adoption of the civil rights cause for all sorts of other causes disgusting and can only explain it by a lack of knowledge what it was actually about (If i'm trying to be nice). One part of society suppressing another part of society is something entirely different than the consequences of all our actions hurting everybody. As different as the actions and consequences these people face to the consequences those fighting inequality faced back then. But go tell yourself that you are the new MLK, the new Rosa Parks. I'm sure that'll fix it.
Last edited:
Nukes/War/"Capitalism" all tend to be the same issue.
Meat is now a climate issue, too, and abortion is a perpetual issue.
Protest habitually breaks the law because that is what protest is, peacefully, in a democracy. Take away that, and have done with democracy altogther. You hold them accountable depending upon the gravity of action post-protest. If they kill people, by protesting, we have jails and judiciary systems. This is how demos works. Preventing that - protest - most of which is non-violent prior to is to create a bottleneck of pent-up public anger which explodes, rightfully, because the right of expressing one's voice, in public, relative to the body politic has been prescinded.
You don't understand the argument at all. It's fine but you don't understand it.
That helped me understand it so much! Thank you for your efforts.
The arrogance of some of you make Trump look humble.
Climate change is the ultimate injustice. In the short term, rich countries (the major contributors to climate change) are likely to carry on and survive in the face of more and more randomised weather events, where as developing countries will be and are already being devastated by it. Climate change is in no way and equal challenge for all.
I worked in SE Asia with people directly affected by climate change and saw people, families and incomes destroyed because of drought, floods and environmental devastation. Where as here in the UK we moan about people stopping traffic.
Not even. They'll survive longer but those poor nations will cascade into madness which triggers global instablilty which bleeds into war which has world ending certainties. Murphy's law. Anything that possibly can go wrong, will go wrong (within a false state). A variable of anything that can happen, will happen (possibilist over probablists).
Assume a false state: global warming, war-economy, which is our current economic state, blood and oil, which needs to be "cleaned" (resolved), and the alteration from a many centuried hegemony to a multipolar world which has never been known. We call this the relative decline of the United States in military terms and economy and its subsequent merger, in bond, with the European order (juxtaposed against the Russian/Chinese/Indian and general BRICS movement with modernizing Arab/Iranian states and a forward looking African continent.
As the global south is first in line for climate change disaster (wrong way to look at it imo as if there, then here), it will have an immediate geopolitical/economic effect upon the north. This is false state logic. At which point any random series of events can lead to general disaster (India/Pakistan; Chinese/Indian border disputes; smaller but substantial nations, the likes of Vietnam, which have existing border issues and disputes with neighbours). Now exponentiate, globally, and the dichotomy between rich/poor is valid but not quite true. If "they" go, we go very quickly. It's baked in.
Of course the alternative is investing in retrofitting various factories, centres of industry, general macro climate schemes, Bretton Woods 2.0, and general global action which corresponds to economic prosperity. But I see none of this, or rare amounts of it, floating about.
Is it? It's an injustice that those who contributed less will likely face worse consequences (it'll feck europe soon enough too, the signs are everywhere) first but in comparison with state cruelty, mass murder, forced sterilization or organized famines?
So you're telling me if people stop moaning about useless traffic jams climate change in SE Asia will be affected how?
It's species death. It sort of outdoes all of those with all of those implied (cruelty, murder via war instability/resources, subsequent genocides, see war, and famine, see resources). 7bn rather than 7mn if you want a direct "always WW2" analogy. It is the sum total of war economic mode, whatever the term, "ist"/"ism", coming home to roost.
If we're making comparisons, then yes, this is far worse and all the bad things you mention will recur within the same species death macro pattern.
Well on that scale it's more like the ultimate justice if we do that to ourselves.
Imagine BOJO called for traffic jams against climate change. Would you participate?
We do all of these things, war economic, to ourselves and there's no justice in any of it. All of it is unnecessary.
I don't really understand what you are saying but I will say that I don't think minorities suppressed themselves in the past or that Uighur people for example are suppressing themselves. In a way China is doing it to itself yes, but one group is distinctly responsible inside China and one is victim. The same can't be said about climate change or it's consequences.
People, minority or majority, kill and torture and otherwise harm people. That's the easiest way of looking at it without any ideological filter. It's the truthful starting position. After which you can say the Chinese did this to the Uighers, or this majority, whether Han Chinese, or whatever national-majority, did this, to whatever national-ethnic-minority. These are aposteriori ideological considerations. The primary point, that people do this to themselves, never goes away. We thus do it to each other, over time, and it comes back to bite you.
Call it Karma or common sense: cagers shall be caged. That's a karmic principle, secular, as it were. The Slave-holders in the Southern American colonies internalized a slave-master-slave dichotomy. That is, without going to pyschological, you can see sociologically the fallout of successive generations which in the United States still deal with the legacy of slavery to Jim Crow segregration, living memory, and it is worse in the South where the Confederate flag remains a symbol of division precisely for the general reasons outlined above. Are white people arguing amongst themselves? Or are they arguing with their non-white neighbours? That is what I mean by doing these things to ourselves for you must live within a society and the desire/whatever it is to trap, hurt, harm, maim people, or enslave, comes back, even if it takes a hundred years (or ten or twenty, why count) to bite everyone involved. It was biting them during slavery: thus the North/South divide in the first instance and abolitionists as well as during the Civil Rights period:
"The murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner, also known as the Freedom Summer murders, the Mississippi civil rights workers' murders, or the Mississippi Burning murders, refers to events in which three activists were abducted and murdered in the city of Philadelphia, Mississippi, in June 1964 during the Civil Rights Movement."
All people are murdering all people, implicitly or explicitly. That is the world within which we live and the one which we leave. Climate change, wrought by spasmodic lack of planning over decades as well as deceit and disinformation, but general economic illiteracy, whether capital-ism or commun-ism, is merely the meta frame for all the world's ills which are contained within it on a day-to-day basis and which frame, macro, if you like, reinforces all of those worst instincts and passions and they will, without intervention, erupt.
Now, all people are doing this to all people. It is only people involved here. Genocides, cultural or literal or whatever, will only worsen: as the economy of the climate worsens, the climate of the economy worsens. So it is a myopic mistake of reason to treat resource scarcity/worsening temperatures/migratory patterns/(see treatment of migrants)/and so on as anything but directly related to and driving the very genocides and miseries we consider remote from climate change.
The world runs and has run upon a war-economic footing for centuries. The military industrial complex, "new in the American Experience", said Eisenhower. He was referring to something rather old in world experience. That is in many ways the root cause of all the problems we now face in one go. Spasmodic hegemonic attempts, with zero planning beyond this nation advances here in reaction to that one retreating there, to make the world in the image of any given race, nation, person, or ethnicity. That needs to end or the world itself is done before climate change gets out the door. The cascading effects will get there first. Simultaneous transition, thus Bretton Woods 2.0, from War-Economy proper, to Defense Economy wherein Climate is treated (and not just climate) as a defense issue and thus funding allocated accordingly. There is no other means of solving this for we do not have two trillion to spend globally on war-economy which fragments global climate consensus in the first place and then try and piss, literally, in the wind with bandages and call them solutions. Seven years to get it done, and I would say about seven months to see serious progress which will decide that seven years (which seven years will decide what we call, weirdly, the "human experiment - or, Have we ever been Human?" - so far the jury is out).
Last edited:
Start with KFC.
Was discussed in my workplace yesterday and the general feeling wasn't annoyance at their cause or interrupting sports because pitch invasions happen all the time for protests or plain notoriety. However there is annoyance that they seem to always turn out to be upper class trust fund students. I think there's something to be said that if these guys just stuck to interrupting sports at least some of the anger would not be resonated since sport is just entertainment at the end of the day. As opposed to what they do when they block roads because that's blocking working people and ordinary people trying to go about their day.
What's your logic, here? Disrupting and annoying people doesn't work, unless you disrupt and annoy people because one part of society is suppressing another part?
Not only that, everything he says could be interpreted as saying climate change is a bigger and more serious issue. Yet somehow we’re supposed to expect less disruptive measures than they did for the civil rights movement?
My logic is that it makes a lot more sense to disrupt a society that is actively suppressing you and your family. The society the civil rights activists protested against was the exact same people suppressing them.
These just stop oil people are as much part of the society wrecking this world as the people they are inconveniencing. They don't care if they keep surgeons out of surgeries or bereft from funerals, they just assume everyone knows less then them and has to be coerced into their conviction as the only solution.
Which I could at least somewhat respect if they actually had any sort of solution.
This bloke isn't a trust fund student!
I'm guessing then that is why he got given confetti and not the orange powder
Good on them, hope they keep on pissing people off.
So it wouldn’t make sense for white people to take part in the civil rights activism back in the day?
Your logic isn’t air-tight
How do you conclude that from what I wrote
If they are protesting against it they aren't part of it... unless they do so by other actions.
Absurd to claim the same for CO2.
How do you conclude that from what I wrote
By reading the first sentence in the post I replied to?
But fine, I guess this could be ambiguity and me latching on to things unfairly. Consider this point instead then: we tend to see change once the pressure on the powers that be gets big enough. It only makes sense to target awareness in regular people, as they’re the only ones who can apply the requisite pressure to affect change.
Weirdly governments in those nations are usually less liberal when it comes to protests.
So swings and roundabouts