No, Just Stop Oil is not an “activist” group. They’re in cahoots with the enemy. They’re defamation, and their intent is to give the radical right something to point to.
Just Stop Just Stop Oil.
EDIT: There are waaaaaaay too many assumptions happening in this thread.
I once read a pretty good write up somewhere on Reddit with proof that they were getting reasonably large financial support from the daughter of an oil baron, and it’s unclear if she supports the left or right.
On the other hand, a friend of a friend was arrested at a just stop oil rally in Manchester, UK a few months back, and I know him well enough to absolutely believe he thought he was doing what was best for the world, although I’m unsure if he’d deface anything.
Just the style of writing in this article gives away a lot:
The self-professed aims of these organisations and their millionaire backers are to bypass politics and implement radical measures upon the world’s population without democratic consultation.
the referenced piece here is written by a Breitbart editor by the way.
Anyway, so Just Stop Oil are going to bypass the world‘s democratic order? Yeah? By demanding them to follow through with their climate pledges?
Oh man.
Also, it is no news, that the Getty heir is contributing to various funds, so what. I am a landlord and support Extinction Rebellion, does that make their actions inauthentic?
The reality is that the UK is using pretty straight forward laws to prevent this kind of protest, they don‘t need some kind of internationalist cabal to do that for them.
There’s no proof but what else could be these people’s problem? They have to know what they’re doing to the image of people who do care about the environment. It’s not like they’re helping. I don’t get it.
it doesn‘t seem logical to you that some people are freaking out because everybody is talking about climate change while it is clearly happening and it is becoming obvious that too little is being done too late?
Man I agree with you. I just feel sick when I see harm being done to such an ancient piece of history. What reason is there for it? Go after something actually related to the problem at least.
I think very little can be done to cause public outrage, which is what they want to do. This did it. Also I see no lasting damage being done to Stone Henge. And that‘s true for all their actions, as far as I know.
fair point. I think it is heart breaking that they seem to be losing this battle. No matter what kind of protest they choose, I keep hearing: Well, that‘s not the kind of protest I would support. So yeah, maybe they are at a dead end. But maybe not because they chose the wrong kind of protest, but because the public don‘t want change. Look at the European elections. It seems the other side‘s propaganda works a lot better, yeah.
All I’m really trying to say is their methods make the environmental movements look bad. I hate that. I want things to get better. I don’t think they’re doing anything to help that. Go after something relevant.
Except this doesn’t make me care about oil one damn bit. What I do care about it harsh penalties for the perpetrators(including community service and paying for the damage to be undone) and protecting heritage sites like this from other shitty humans. Its not activism, it’s vandalism. It has nothing to do with oil. It would be the same as setting the Mona Lisa on fire and screaming about oil. It’s just unhinged.
Except this doesn’t make me care about oil one damn bit.
So what? Nobody cares what you think, least of all the Just Stop Oil people. They don’t have to win people to their cause; they just have to keep making themselves a nuisance until everybody’s so pissed off that The Powers That Be are forced to capitulate just to make it stop.
Not to mention, it takes extremists like them to make the more moderate environmentalists look reasonable. It’s the same way that the government was eventually forced to concede to the demands of people like MLK: because it became clear that the demands of people like Malcolm X, not the status quo, were the alternative.
Sure but you can hardly compare this to any of MLK’s protests. As far as I’m aware, he never harmed pieces of ancient history. He got to the root of the problem and did things like sit-ins in white only restaurants. It’s two different kinds of pissing people off.
If that were true, wouldn’t their shenanigans be more destructive? Soup over a glass protected painting and colored corn starch on a monument are not really rage inducing.
“Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers” is what I’m hearing.
Sorry. But as climate change gets worse and corporations continue to annihilate the living beings on this planet while governments uphold their ability to do so, the protests will only become more radical. We’re long past the point of polite protests, and they didn’t work.
Radical in my mind is burning down an oil plant. Going after a piece of history is disgusting. At least ruffle the feathers of the people you’re standing up to.
I’ve read the other replies to my comment, but yours is the only counter that I mostly agree with.
Yes, going after an oil plant would certainly be a much more radical form of protest. The main issue is that targeting something like that carries massive risk and is unfathomably challenging. That isn’t to say they shouldn’t do it though.
My comment was more a response to some of the general negative sentiment that I see in response to other protests that are disruptive. It’s usually reactionary claims of “you’re making people mad, so it’s counterproductive”, while ignoring the fact that nothing else has worked.
Protests will always incite rage. The question is “is it justified?”. In this case, sure, but your unhinged comment that started this thread is just reactionary drivel.
They give an example of what they consider radical and you respond with “so they should risk everything for you.” That’s like responding with “so you hate waffles” to a tweet saying “pancakes taste good”
I don‘t think so. He says burning down oil refineries would be great and says himself that the other form of protest is bad.
I didn‘t position myself about that. He did, and I think he‘s a hypocrite for doing so.
Radical in my mind is burning down an oil plant. Going after a piece of history is disgusting. At least ruffle the feathers of the people you’re standing up to.
Radical
a: very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b: favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c: associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs
They said burning down an oil plant is radical. Are you thinking of the slang definition of radical? The only call to action is the ruffling of feathers.
“Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers” is what I’m hearing.
I don’t think that protests have to be polite, however protests do have to be productive. If your environmental group’s political agitation only results in turning public opinion away from the greater movement…I’m not sure if that’s a productive use of political capital.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to question a group’s motivation who are participating in unproductive political agitation. Especially considering that their funding comes from an oil heiress, who could be using her vast fortune to be lobbying to the people whom actually have access to the power that can bring about real change.
the protests will only become more radical.
I’d hardly say paying some teens to “vandalize” a painting that your family owns is really a radical act of protest. Now if they were conducting these types of actions against oil companies, or the political bodies who support them… That would be radical.
Okay but could they please target things that are actually causing the problem and not thousands of years old stone monuments that can’t possibly have any bearing on anything.
Otherwise they’re just being vandals. And then bean vandals is counterproductive to their own stated course.
This is so hilariously wrong. There’s a lot of stuff I won’t admit to since this is a public account and a public identity. Kairos. What I don’t support, however, is vandalism of historical monuments. Especially when the monument in question is so incredibly irrelevant to the crisis at hand.
It’s corn starch. The ancient wonder suffers more defacement in the form of erosion because it rains every 4 seconds in the UK. Stonehenge will be perfectly okay.
My wording was trash. It’s not so much the “damage” done but that it doesn’t feel like a productive protest and that it’ll piss of more people than anything.
No, Just Stop Oil is not an “activist” group. They’re in cahoots with the enemy. They’re defamation, and their intent is to give the radical right something to point to.
Just Stop Just Stop Oil.
EDIT: There are waaaaaaay too many assumptions happening in this thread.
Huh. This is actually the most sensible answer.
I once read a pretty good write up somewhere on Reddit with proof that they were getting reasonably large financial support from the daughter of an oil baron, and it’s unclear if she supports the left or right.
On the other hand, a friend of a friend was arrested at a just stop oil rally in Manchester, UK a few months back, and I know him well enough to absolutely believe he thought he was doing what was best for the world, although I’m unsure if he’d deface anything.
Those two things are not incongruous. Your friend was deceived by the leadership who is in the pocket of oil companies.
you got some proof for that?
https://whynow.co.uk/read/who-is-funding-just-stop-oil-the-billionaires-backing-the-art-vandals
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/10/climate/climate-protesters-paid-activists.html
Sorry about the Times article, it’s a citation used on Wikipedia. Top one is not paywalled.
So let‘s talk about the first article. It‘s written by art critic Alexander Adams who likes to talk about things like „why the Left hates good art“
https://soundcloud.com/user-923838732/alexander-adams-why-the-left-hates-good-art
Just the style of writing in this article gives away a lot:
the referenced piece here is written by a Breitbart editor by the way.
Anyway, so Just Stop Oil are going to bypass the world‘s democratic order? Yeah? By demanding them to follow through with their climate pledges? Oh man.
Also, it is no news, that the Getty heir is contributing to various funds, so what. I am a landlord and support Extinction Rebellion, does that make their actions inauthentic?
The reality is that the UK is using pretty straight forward laws to prevent this kind of protest, they don‘t need some kind of internationalist cabal to do that for them.
Gift link without paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/10/climate/climate-protesters-paid-activists.html?unlocked_article_code=1.000.-rZs.8wjOCOsvzQFT
There’s no proof but what else could be these people’s problem? They have to know what they’re doing to the image of people who do care about the environment. It’s not like they’re helping. I don’t get it.
it doesn‘t seem logical to you that some people are freaking out because everybody is talking about climate change while it is clearly happening and it is becoming obvious that too little is being done too late?
Man I agree with you. I just feel sick when I see harm being done to such an ancient piece of history. What reason is there for it? Go after something actually related to the problem at least.
I think very little can be done to cause public outrage, which is what they want to do. This did it. Also I see no lasting damage being done to Stone Henge. And that‘s true for all their actions, as far as I know.
But are their actions causing public outrage at: a) the causes and purveyors of climate change, or b) the people protesting climate change?
I don’t think the “any attention is good attention” adage applies to something as politically polarized as climate change.
fair point. I think it is heart breaking that they seem to be losing this battle. No matter what kind of protest they choose, I keep hearing: Well, that‘s not the kind of protest I would support. So yeah, maybe they are at a dead end. But maybe not because they chose the wrong kind of protest, but because the public don‘t want change. Look at the European elections. It seems the other side‘s propaganda works a lot better, yeah.
Then shut it until you can show evidence.
All I’m really trying to say is their methods make the environmental movements look bad. I hate that. I want things to get better. I don’t think they’re doing anything to help that. Go after something relevant.
MLK’s protests made the civil rights movement look bad. People fucking hated him at the time, despite how history has whitewashed him.
Every effective protest pisses reactionaries and “moderates” off. If it doesn’t piss them off, it isn’t effective.
Except this doesn’t make me care about oil one damn bit. What I do care about it harsh penalties for the perpetrators(including community service and paying for the damage to be undone) and protecting heritage sites like this from other shitty humans. Its not activism, it’s vandalism. It has nothing to do with oil. It would be the same as setting the Mona Lisa on fire and screaming about oil. It’s just unhinged.
So what? Nobody cares what you think, least of all the Just Stop Oil people. They don’t have to win people to their cause; they just have to keep making themselves a nuisance until everybody’s so pissed off that The Powers That Be are forced to capitulate just to make it stop.
Not to mention, it takes extremists like them to make the more moderate environmentalists look reasonable. It’s the same way that the government was eventually forced to concede to the demands of people like MLK: because it became clear that the demands of people like Malcolm X, not the status quo, were the alternative.
Sure but you can hardly compare this to any of MLK’s protests. As far as I’m aware, he never harmed pieces of ancient history. He got to the root of the problem and did things like sit-ins in white only restaurants. It’s two different kinds of pissing people off.
If that were true, wouldn’t their shenanigans be more destructive? Soup over a glass protected painting and colored corn starch on a monument are not really rage inducing.
it adds credibility. if they actually destroyed stone henge i doubt even the hardest anarchists would follow them
Exactly what I came to say. Those guys ara activists pro-oil performing a false flagg attack.
“Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers” is what I’m hearing.
Sorry. But as climate change gets worse and corporations continue to annihilate the living beings on this planet while governments uphold their ability to do so, the protests will only become more radical. We’re long past the point of polite protests, and they didn’t work.
Radical in my mind is burning down an oil plant. Going after a piece of history is disgusting. At least ruffle the feathers of the people you’re standing up to.
I’ve read the other replies to my comment, but yours is the only counter that I mostly agree with.
Yes, going after an oil plant would certainly be a much more radical form of protest. The main issue is that targeting something like that carries massive risk and is unfathomably challenging. That isn’t to say they shouldn’t do it though.
My comment was more a response to some of the general negative sentiment that I see in response to other protests that are disruptive. It’s usually reactionary claims of “you’re making people mad, so it’s counterproductive”, while ignoring the fact that nothing else has worked.
Protests should be disruptive in that they incite change, not in that they incite rage. This.
Protests will always incite rage. The question is “is it justified?”. In this case, sure, but your unhinged comment that started this thread is just reactionary drivel.
I was literally agreeing with you, but alright
and somebody else should be taking that kind of risk for us, for you?
This is the waffles tweet
Explain
They give an example of what they consider radical and you respond with “so they should risk everything for you.” That’s like responding with “so you hate waffles” to a tweet saying “pancakes taste good”
I don‘t think so. He says burning down oil refineries would be great and says himself that the other form of protest is bad. I didn‘t position myself about that. He did, and I think he‘s a hypocrite for doing so.
They said burning down an oil plant is radical. Are you thinking of the slang definition of radical? The only call to action is the ruffling of feathers.
I don’t think that protests have to be polite, however protests do have to be productive. If your environmental group’s political agitation only results in turning public opinion away from the greater movement…I’m not sure if that’s a productive use of political capital.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to question a group’s motivation who are participating in unproductive political agitation. Especially considering that their funding comes from an oil heiress, who could be using her vast fortune to be lobbying to the people whom actually have access to the power that can bring about real change.
I’d hardly say paying some teens to “vandalize” a painting that your family owns is really a radical act of protest. Now if they were conducting these types of actions against oil companies, or the political bodies who support them… That would be radical.
Okay but could they please target things that are actually causing the problem and not thousands of years old stone monuments that can’t possibly have any bearing on anything.
Otherwise they’re just being vandals. And then bean vandals is counterproductive to their own stated course.
This is so hilariously wrong. There’s a lot of stuff I won’t admit to since this is a public account and a public identity. Kairos. What I don’t support, however, is vandalism of historical monuments. Especially when the monument in question is so incredibly irrelevant to the crisis at hand.
haha
Yes, and?
I’m sorry dog but spray painting an ancient wonder isn’t an environmental protest.
It’s corn starch. The ancient wonder suffers more defacement in the form of erosion because it rains every 4 seconds in the UK. Stonehenge will be perfectly okay.
My wording was trash. It’s not so much the “damage” done but that it doesn’t feel like a productive protest and that it’ll piss of more people than anything.
Non-violently blocking the entrance to an oil refinery = good protest
Defacing ancient monument temporarily = bad protest