The new thing is shitting on the graves of Big Oil ancestors. On TikTok, obviously.
The outrage it provokes will undoubtedly solve the climate crisis. And, worse case scenario, people film themselves defecating on a grave. Which is snif so brave
Yes, you are a liar. You said "ruined" but still have not provided an example of something they have ruined. And after being called out on it, you proceed to use personal insults. Not only are you a liar, you are also incredibly immature.
It's always nice to see the exact moment someone realizes they're in an argument that they can't win. And it's no surprise it's due to making a claim you have no way of backing up (because it's factually incorrect).
do you know why they protested at stonehenge? the comic actually illustrates it well. If you're this pissed off about cornflour being thrown on a UNESCO World Heritage site, you should look up how many world heritage sites are at risk of being submerged.
You don't understand. That protest provoked an emotional reaction in me and I didn't like it. Responsible protests don't hurt people's feelings. They went too far.
I'm sure all the equal rights protests MLK orchestrated were highly accepted by the moderates and racists across the country and didnt hurt their feelings at all
Oh wait, protest arent about your feelings but instead are about making critical changes in infrastructure and society
Hatred and violence are not things protests are meant to inspire. But changing how you feel about an issue is exactly what they are meant to do
How naive. True change doesn't come from offending moderates - true change comes from making moderates comfortable, so they feel secure and confident that the change you won't harm them. Any protest that makes people uncomfortable about society or their own actions is counterproductive and just makes things worse.
Take Colin Kaepernick. Taking a knee during the national anthem before a football game was exactly the wrong way to protest racism, because it angered people who loved football and loved America, who should have been his natural allies. What Colin should have done was been even more patriotic and sung the anthem even louder, to express how much he loved America and how he wanted to see it become better. That would have inspired people who supported his cause, without offending people who disagreed with him, and there would have been no controversy.
That's the way white moderates want to see people protest. Being conformist and forgettable is how we make change.
Colin should have done was been even more patriotic and sung the anthem even louder, to express how much he loved America and how he wanted to see it become better. That would have inspired people who supported his cause
I know you’re being sarcastic, but you’re actually partially right.
A successful protest reaches people outside of a cause, compelling them to learn more, in hopes that they ultimately become a supporter.
Performative radicalized protests are only compelling to those already behind the cause, and immediately discredited by those you need to reach. It may actually drive resentment for the cause in the people who were planning to see Stonehenge that day.
A successful protest reaches people outside of a cause, compelling them to learn more, in hopes that they ultimately become a supporter.
Performative radicalized protests are only compelling to those already behind the cause, and immediately discredited by those you need to reach.
That's not how any of this works.
A protests' success is judged by how much publicity it receives, and the disproportionate scale of the reaction from antagonists to the movement. Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem was a successful protest because he was a public figure and had a national stage, and the reaction of conservatives throwing fits over a symbolic gesture highlighted the racism typically hidden in polite white society. The police riot in Selma got national attention because of the graphic scenes of white police beating black folks in Sunday dress, and the scale of the police response to people engaging in peaceful protest revealed the violence inherent in Jim Crow apartheid.
Likewise, the Stonehenge protest was extremely successful because it received international attention, and the disproportionate outrage over harmless dust compared to the real threat of climate change puts a spotlight to the widespread apathy of society to the threat.
You think protests are supposed to reach you specifically, because you're sympathetic to the protests old enough to read about in history books. But your opinion of those protests is mediated by the society that those protests have already successfully altered. The moderate of the past would have considered those historical protests 'performative' and 'radicalized' as well. They would also be on the wrong side of history.
You’re welcome to do it in their stead. I’ll happily wait for confirmation that you’ve done the thing you want others to do but aren’t willing to do yourself.
this is good, but I think we should build our own (illegal) stonehenge. Or maybe a pyramid. Not only it'd be nice to have something other than microplastic standing after the society collapse, it'd be a huge powerplay. As we seem to be wanting to join earlier civilizations that are no longer here (nor remembered that fondly) it seems only adequate.
My geographic area doesn't really have stone available, best I can do is a mound :(
I don't think that's how it works. Plastic degrades fast (especially with UV radiation), it just doesn't fully go away. That's how we get microplastic and harmful chemicals everywhere.
I'm not sure what to take from this second half, is protest only valid if it happens under a set of circumstances and targets you've chosen? Is protest by a westerner invalid if they don't take a net zero canoe to India or China or Saudi Arabia to deface something there? Surely not.
Well, depending on who you ask, a protest from a westerner is invalid simply because it's a westerner.
Doesn't even matter if it's supporting a "non-westerner" cause, because then you're just another colonizing westerner appropriating something you couldn't possibly undertand. Regardless of your actual understanding, of course.
I really don't know what the OP comment is even trying to say, it just comes off as weirdly confrontational.
Yeah what a shame that the UK still allows some form of protest and does not just shoot them like the Chinese. /s
Seriously the UK is the fithed largest cumulative emitter and even though that is over litterally centuries even recent emissions are well above the global average. Combine that with a government, which allows even more oil and gas drilling, while even opening up a new coal mine. The UK is doing better then quite a few other countries, but it is not exactly great.
The UK offshored most of its emissions. So as soon as you adjust for that it is about at the level of the EU on a per capita bases. However the EU has much more laws passed to actually reduce emissions in the coming years.
Wait, do you really expect British citizens to fly to the US or China in order to commit vandalism?
What do you think they'd put on their visa application? "Purpose of travel: throw paint on the Statue of Liberty"?
In a world full of bad faith "I support your cause but not your methods" attacks on environmental activism, this is one of the most ridiculous ones I've ever heard.
Nothing really, but the protest does shine a light on humanities superficial respect for historically important monuments and cultural sites especially when it comes to climate change.
Stonehenge is a culturally important site, no doubt about it, and the reaction to the protest has been swift and strong and includes criminal charges. But the same state that condemns these actions in the harshest terms is timid in the face of the much more destructive acts of climate change.
Where is the outrage over the climate driven erosion of the Cliffs of Dover? Or the surge risk to the tower Of London? Or Orkney Islands? Not even to mention the risks to human health, food production, invasive species, and fires.
Personally, I'm done carrying water for big oil and climate deniers by focusing on the method of protest instead of the message.
Just a note for anyone disagreeing with the sentiment of my last line. I would have agreed with you a year or two ago, but then I read Martin Luther King's Letter from the Birmingham jail and it changed my mind entirely on the nature of protest, nessecary tension, and the role of so called moderates in perpetuating injustice.
Give the letter a read, hear some analysis on it, it might change your mind like it did mine.
protest does shine a light on humanities superficial respect for historically important monuments and cultural sites
Interestingly the former leader of the Taliban argued exactly the same way when asked why they destroyed some world famous statues in Afghanistan (but compared it to the total lack of care for the actual humans living in Afghanistan, which is ironic considering the source... but hey, everyone is the hero in their own story 🤷♂️ ).
Do you understand the difference between blowing up ancient statues with dynamite, and throwing some chalk on stones that have been in place since the 1950s?
The stones of Stonehenge have been there for millennia, yes, but they are only in their modern configuration since the 1950s, as a best guess reconstruction of something that had been lost long ago.
The Bamyan statues were much younger, but were largely intact as they had been for 1,400 years. And, y'know, got blown up rather than doused with a bit of colour (which frankly was probably a better recreation of what happened at the real Stonehenge than the LARPing the faux druids do).
It’s a great way to remind people of the disaster ahead, and force people to mention it. Even if in a bad tone, they still have to remind themselves that it exists .
Activism can never ever ever ever ever achieve anything if it doest cause discomfort. A demonstration that doesn't block roads or disrupt services is just invisible. And causing damage to a landmark is disruptive and discomforting.
There is also the point that oil companies will just shoot you if you were to vandalise their office.
Perfect! Go find a list of parents with one child and punch those babies. Then figure out which grandparents have the most grandkids and stomp their feet. Next set an orphanage on fire when everyone is playing outside. All these things are exactly as related to climate change as putting beans on art or paint on Stonehenge.
Of course you are exactly right: this is why all the great protests you hear about for civil rights, women's rights, and reproductive rights all started by going where it was safe and fucking up some art and history.
You can have a disruptive impact and not be a totally entitled piece of shit.
I once read a conspiracy theory that these "activists" are actually funded or hired by oil companies to lower peoples' respect for activists. Sounds plausible, but I've never seen proof or evidence.
Just Stop Oil targets culturally significant objects to highlight that the viewer's outrage at direct attacks on those objects is greater than the viewer's outrage at the same attacks against those objects by the creators of climate change.
If throwing washable paint on Stonehenge pisses you off, you should be even more angry at big oil for progressively destroying the entire planet. Any call for the arrest and immediate punishment of Just Stop Oil members should also match calls for the immediate punishment of big oil execs.
but i've already been angry at them for that. why assume i wasn't? now i'm just also worried about historical sites. personally, so lost on what this accomplished
12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.
13 “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’”
solarpunk memes
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.