I’m not sure how this helps though. These people can say to future generations, “well, we didn’t get people to stop using fossil fuels, but we did damage a 5000-year-old monument that was made long before anyone had the idea of burning fossil fuels to make people aware of a problem they were already aware of but powerless to do anything about.”
This isn’t going to stop oil companies from drilling for oil.
It reminds me of a friend of mine I used to follow elsewhere on social media. Every day, she would post pictures of ‘death row dogs’ in nearby shelters that were going to be euthanized. There was fuck all I could do about it. I already have two dogs. I don’t have room for more and I couldn’t afford more. So all it did was make me feel like shit. Then she started posting photos with “too late” messages and I stopped following her.
As far as I could find out, they used orange cornflour that will just wash off the next time it rains. The most amount of damage anyone could seriously bring up was that it could harm/displace the lichen on the henge.
That’s not to say that I specifically condone the action, but it’s a lot less bad than this article makes it sound. It’s the same with the soup attack on one of van Gogh’s painting, which had protective glass on it. So far all the JSO actions targeting cultural/historical things (at least the ones that made it to the big news) have been done in a way that makes them sound awful at first hearing, but intentionally did not actually damage the targeted cultural/historical thing.
I think the biases of the journalist/news outlet/etc. are somewhat exposed by which parts they focus on and which they downplay or omit entirely.
I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.
Also, orange dye can easily get into cracks in the rocks and stay there for a very long time. Especially if it displaces the lichens. That won’t make it collapse, so maybe ‘damage’ is not the right word, but this is potentially long-lasting vandalism which, as far as I can see, will have no effect on the actual problem.
I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.
Which brings me back to the last point in my comment. I also hope I’m right but the two times I looked into it (right after the attack and before writing my comment) both came up with that result and also it seems that English Heritage came out today saying there was “No visible damage”.
As I said, I’m not writing to defend the action, just pointing out that the OP article is, willfully or not, omitting certain aspects that could make JSO look a little bit better.
To play devil’s advocate against the devil’s advocate, I’m not sure “Stonehenge covered with orange corn starch by Just Stop Oil activists” would have communicated the kind of emergency these activists are hoping to convey, so they’re clearly counting on the headline grabbing people’s attention and triggering their outrage meter. In that way, the journalist might even think they’re helping the JSO group.
I agree, I think they’ve been remarkably responsible about avoiding lasting damage. What upsets me is how they’re fueling the far-right rage machine with more propaganda ammunition at a time when we are already fighting a fierce and undecided battle to live in a world that isn’t run by exclusionary ideological nationalistic idiots.
It’s like they cannot understand that some people don’t want the world saved, and agree with Hitler when he wrote about the tears of war being the bread of future generations. A sentiment that basically says suffering=good. So, more suffering=better. Will climate change cause suffering? Well, guess what then.
Which does exactly what? Is it at all likely that anyone actually able to do anything about this was unaware of the climate change disaster we’re facing and this will change their mind?
Yeah. That’s their intent. But they really don’t know for sure that their stunt won’t have some completely unexpected effect. Some slow reaction with that specific kind of stone that only matters if the powder gets deep into some cracks for 200 years or whatever. Or attracts stone eating bacteria of some sort.
The point is that they dont know what they dont know. Every time they pull one of these stunts, they are introducing the risk of irrevocable damage to historically significant objects that should be left to future generations.
Stop fucking around with human history. Stone Henge is a world wonder.
But we’re not talking about it. We’re not talking about political action, or technological solutions, or mitigation programs, or investments in adaptation, or natural resource management, or harm reduction, or food distribution, or drought management.
No, we’re talking about a bunch of first world children who decided to paint a bunch of ten-thousand year old rocks for attention.
Normally I would say this damage was inappropriate. But, considering humanity is going to be eradicated in the next hundred years, give or take, I think maybe we should be doing more to slow that down.
The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Obviously humanity is not being squeaky enough. Maybe if enough things are destroyed, The rest of the world will finally pay attention.
Why do you think “the world” matters? This is mostly the fault of a few corporations and their executives couldn’t give less of a shit about what someone does to Stonehenge.
How do we stop evil corporations? With political action. How do we get political action? Either by voting or collective activism.
That is true.
But they are doing activism for the wrong side. The conservatives and far right will jump on this one, because they just gotten handed a talking point on a silver platter. “Radical left activists attack cultural heritage site”. They couldn’t have asked for a more perfect one.
Ah, a doomer. So let me guess, there’s nothing we can do and every form of activism is useless?
Just go on with your day then. This protest certainly isn’t about you. They didn’t hurt you personally, so why not just let them do their thing. The people who believe solutions exist can continue to search for them and you don’t have to bother.
Or do you actually have something helpful in mind?
Oh I don’t think the world matters. In fact, I’m super happy humanity is about to be wiped out of existence. We are all pieces of shit.
But you would think more people would be interested in saving it. A significant portion of humanity is uninterested in hearing about Global warming. Those people need to wake up.
FWIW this kind of alarmist talk only lets people write off your comment as hysterical. Humans are not going to go extinct in the next 100 years, Canada isnt going to become hotter than Arabia and become unlivable.
What we might (and even possibly the most likely scenario is to) get is wide scale societal breakdown, starvation of billions, mass migration of billions of those currently living in regions that become uninhabitable but dont starve, and the consequant resource wars that those entail. The future is bleak enough without making up even worse things that wont happen.
That a viable population of humans will be alive in 2124? Sure how much do you want to bet? I think your chance of collecting from me if im wrong when im more than 120 years old are slim though.
Your example shows exactly what people are missing. Just because you did not have the capacity for more dogs doesnt mean that other people never got convinced to save one of those dogs. If those pictures convinced even just one person to adopt a dog, then it was worth the minor inconvienience that you had to go through.
Similarly the actual damage from this protest is slim to none (if they used the same stuff as usual that just washes away with water) and if it convinces somebody to get politically active for climate change then it was already worth it.
You thinking that you are powerless, shouldnt result in other people being forced to be powerless when they are not.
Who’s actually doing that, though? I mean that sincerely. Is there anyone who wouldn’t have gotten involved, but who was swayed to do so by orange paint on historical artifacts? This seems like directionless compensatory venting by activists whose other strategies are failing to meaningfully persuade.
Further, what’s the balance of people in the other direction who have an inkling that they’d consider doing more, but who are swayed against it by the increasingly unhinged extremist tactics these protestors are using? There’s an entire online ecosystem rife with a combination of climate denialism, analytical paralysis, and doomsaying, and there’s a non-zero number of people who likely either stop caring or throw their hands up in frustration because protestors are doing more harm than good by throwing what I’m sure looks to them like ridiculous tantrums. For every ally they gain, they probably lose some, too.
And that’s not even touching on the fact that systemic structural changes are the only possible solution to this problem, and making the average person feel guilty and/or agitated is a weird form of victim shaming.
A better way to propose your question is: out of all the millions of people on Earth who hear about these activities, will literally 0 of them take any meaningful action against climate change?
The likelihood of that quite small, suggesting a non-zero value. That non-zero value is likely to be smaller than the damages of water-washable paint.
I’m not advocating for anyone here, but I think that’s the calculus OP was suggesting, and it makes perfect sense to me.
If eye-rolling and annoyance produced greenhouse gases, then it might be a different story.
I’m not sure I follow. You’re suggesting that >0 people take meaningful action as a result of hearing about this protest. I’m saying that >0 people take fewer meaningful actions as a result, and >0 probably turn away from your cause when they hear about stupid shit like this. So for every one convert in the right direction, there are some in the other direction. Whether or not the two balance is certainly up for debate, and which side you prefer to highlight at the expense of the other, depends on your preconceived opinion.
Which really just reiterates that this kind of nonsense is a net negative, because the people who respond positively to it were already converts in the first place.
That’s not how climate change works. Everybody except for politicians and fossil fuel executives are me in this scenario. We’re just being told constantly how the world is getting hotter and something must be done and there’s fuck all I can do about it. And that’s also true of every person at Stonehenge that day.
We can’t control where the energy comes from and what cars are made and what bottles drinks are put in. And it’s really clear that it doesn’t matter who we vote for either.
So, in this situation, people see these stunts and just get angry and stop paying attention since there’s nothing they can do about it anyway.
I’m not sure how this helps though. These people can say to future generations, “well, we didn’t get people to stop using fossil fuels, but we did damage a 5000-year-old monument that was made long before anyone had the idea of burning fossil fuels to make people aware of a problem they were already aware of but powerless to do anything about.”
This isn’t going to stop oil companies from drilling for oil.
It reminds me of a friend of mine I used to follow elsewhere on social media. Every day, she would post pictures of ‘death row dogs’ in nearby shelters that were going to be euthanized. There was fuck all I could do about it. I already have two dogs. I don’t have room for more and I couldn’t afford more. So all it did was make me feel like shit. Then she started posting photos with “too late” messages and I stopped following her.
How does that help?
It’s not the same thing. At least your friend was calling attention to a cause she cared about
Much like climate change- who is not aware that there are dogs getting euthanized in shelters?
I don’t understand why all of you are talking about raising awareness of something everyone is aware of.
As far as I could find out, they used orange cornflour that will just wash off the next time it rains. The most amount of damage anyone could seriously bring up was that it could harm/displace the lichen on the henge.
That’s not to say that I specifically condone the action, but it’s a lot less bad than this article makes it sound. It’s the same with the soup attack on one of van Gogh’s painting, which had protective glass on it. So far all the JSO actions targeting cultural/historical things (at least the ones that made it to the big news) have been done in a way that makes them sound awful at first hearing, but intentionally did not actually damage the targeted cultural/historical thing.
I think the biases of the journalist/news outlet/etc. are somewhat exposed by which parts they focus on and which they downplay or omit entirely.
I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.
Also, orange dye can easily get into cracks in the rocks and stay there for a very long time. Especially if it displaces the lichens. That won’t make it collapse, so maybe ‘damage’ is not the right word, but this is potentially long-lasting vandalism which, as far as I can see, will have no effect on the actual problem.
Which brings me back to the last point in my comment. I also hope I’m right but the two times I looked into it (right after the attack and before writing my comment) both came up with that result and also it seems that English Heritage came out today saying there was “No visible damage”.
As I said, I’m not writing to defend the action, just pointing out that the OP article is, willfully or not, omitting certain aspects that could make JSO look a little bit better.
To play devil’s advocate against the devil’s advocate, I’m not sure “Stonehenge covered with orange corn starch by Just Stop Oil activists” would have communicated the kind of emergency these activists are hoping to convey, so they’re clearly counting on the headline grabbing people’s attention and triggering their outrage meter. In that way, the journalist might even think they’re helping the JSO group.
I agree, I think they’ve been remarkably responsible about avoiding lasting damage. What upsets me is how they’re fueling the far-right rage machine with more propaganda ammunition at a time when we are already fighting a fierce and undecided battle to live in a world that isn’t run by exclusionary ideological nationalistic idiots.
It’s like they cannot understand that some people don’t want the world saved, and agree with Hitler when he wrote about the tears of war being the bread of future generations. A sentiment that basically says suffering=good. So, more suffering=better. Will climate change cause suffering? Well, guess what then.
We’re talking about it
Which does exactly what? Is it at all likely that anyone actually able to do anything about this was unaware of the climate change disaster we’re facing and this will change their mind?
If you dont see any value in common discourse, you have already given up on life and the world imo.
Yeah, that sounds about accurate for me…
This is hardly common discourse.
Note how we are talking about how large of douchebags the activists are and just how much they damaged a cultural heritage site.
Fuck these people.
“The orange cornflour we used to create an eye-catching spectacle will soon wash away with the rain…"
Yeah. That’s their intent. But they really don’t know for sure that their stunt won’t have some completely unexpected effect. Some slow reaction with that specific kind of stone that only matters if the powder gets deep into some cracks for 200 years or whatever. Or attracts stone eating bacteria of some sort.
The point is that they dont know what they dont know. Every time they pull one of these stunts, they are introducing the risk of irrevocable damage to historically significant objects that should be left to future generations.
Stop fucking around with human history. Stone Henge is a world wonder.
But we’re not talking about it. We’re not talking about political action, or technological solutions, or mitigation programs, or investments in adaptation, or natural resource management, or harm reduction, or food distribution, or drought management.
No, we’re talking about a bunch of first world children who decided to paint a bunch of ten-thousand year old rocks for attention.
Normally I would say this damage was inappropriate. But, considering humanity is going to be eradicated in the next hundred years, give or take, I think maybe we should be doing more to slow that down.
Yet this kind of protests just alienates the protesters from the population they want support from
They want support from me.
But how will this slow that down?
The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Obviously humanity is not being squeaky enough. Maybe if enough things are destroyed, The rest of the world will finally pay attention.
Why do you think “the world” matters? This is mostly the fault of a few corporations and their executives couldn’t give less of a shit about what someone does to Stonehenge.
How do we stop evil corporations? With political action. How do we get political action? Either by voting or collective activism.
There’s no solution that doesn’t require ourselves to spring into action, even if it’s “mostly the fault of a few corporations and their executives”.
That is true.
But they are doing activism for the wrong side. The conservatives and far right will jump on this one, because they just gotten handed a talking point on a silver platter. “Radical left activists attack cultural heritage site”. They couldn’t have asked for a more perfect one.
Voting for whom? They’re all corrupt, or haven’t you noticed? We’re living in a global oligarchy.
Also, why on Earth do you think environmental activists pissing people off will help with any sort of collective action?
Ah, a doomer. So let me guess, there’s nothing we can do and every form of activism is useless?
Just go on with your day then. This protest certainly isn’t about you. They didn’t hurt you personally, so why not just let them do their thing. The people who believe solutions exist can continue to search for them and you don’t have to bother.
Or do you actually have something helpful in mind?
I’m not sure why you think I should answer your questions when you won’t do the courtesy of answering mine. That’s incredibly rude of you.
Oh I don’t think the world matters. In fact, I’m super happy humanity is about to be wiped out of existence. We are all pieces of shit.
But you would think more people would be interested in saving it. A significant portion of humanity is uninterested in hearing about Global warming. Those people need to wake up.
What is “significant?”
And, again, hearing about it doesn’t mean you can do something about it. There’s fuck all I can do about it.
FWIW this kind of alarmist talk only lets people write off your comment as hysterical. Humans are not going to go extinct in the next 100 years, Canada isnt going to become hotter than Arabia and become unlivable.
What we might (and even possibly the most likely scenario is to) get is wide scale societal breakdown, starvation of billions, mass migration of billions of those currently living in regions that become uninhabitable but dont starve, and the consequant resource wars that those entail. The future is bleak enough without making up even worse things that wont happen.
Would you like to make a wager?
Yes. One gazillion dollars.
See? See how ridiculous you sound?
That does sound ridiculous, but it’s your comment not mine.
Wanna bet?
You don’t have any money
That a viable population of humans will be alive in 2124? Sure how much do you want to bet? I think your chance of collecting from me if im wrong when im more than 120 years old are slim though.
1k, put in escrow. Pay out to whomever.
Your example shows exactly what people are missing. Just because you did not have the capacity for more dogs doesnt mean that other people never got convinced to save one of those dogs. If those pictures convinced even just one person to adopt a dog, then it was worth the minor inconvienience that you had to go through.
Similarly the actual damage from this protest is slim to none (if they used the same stuff as usual that just washes away with water) and if it convinces somebody to get politically active for climate change then it was already worth it.
You thinking that you are powerless, shouldnt result in other people being forced to be powerless when they are not.
Who’s actually doing that, though? I mean that sincerely. Is there anyone who wouldn’t have gotten involved, but who was swayed to do so by orange paint on historical artifacts? This seems like directionless compensatory venting by activists whose other strategies are failing to meaningfully persuade.
Further, what’s the balance of people in the other direction who have an inkling that they’d consider doing more, but who are swayed against it by the increasingly unhinged extremist tactics these protestors are using? There’s an entire online ecosystem rife with a combination of climate denialism, analytical paralysis, and doomsaying, and there’s a non-zero number of people who likely either stop caring or throw their hands up in frustration because protestors are doing more harm than good by throwing what I’m sure looks to them like ridiculous tantrums. For every ally they gain, they probably lose some, too.
And that’s not even touching on the fact that systemic structural changes are the only possible solution to this problem, and making the average person feel guilty and/or agitated is a weird form of victim shaming.
A better way to propose your question is: out of all the millions of people on Earth who hear about these activities, will literally 0 of them take any meaningful action against climate change?
The likelihood of that quite small, suggesting a non-zero value. That non-zero value is likely to be smaller than the damages of water-washable paint.
I’m not advocating for anyone here, but I think that’s the calculus OP was suggesting, and it makes perfect sense to me.
If eye-rolling and annoyance produced greenhouse gases, then it might be a different story.
I’m not sure I follow. You’re suggesting that >0 people take meaningful action as a result of hearing about this protest. I’m saying that >0 people take fewer meaningful actions as a result, and >0 probably turn away from your cause when they hear about stupid shit like this. So for every one convert in the right direction, there are some in the other direction. Whether or not the two balance is certainly up for debate, and which side you prefer to highlight at the expense of the other, depends on your preconceived opinion.
Which really just reiterates that this kind of nonsense is a net negative, because the people who respond positively to it were already converts in the first place.
That’s not how climate change works. Everybody except for politicians and fossil fuel executives are me in this scenario. We’re just being told constantly how the world is getting hotter and something must be done and there’s fuck all I can do about it. And that’s also true of every person at Stonehenge that day.
We can’t control where the energy comes from and what cars are made and what bottles drinks are put in. And it’s really clear that it doesn’t matter who we vote for either.
So, in this situation, people see these stunts and just get angry and stop paying attention since there’s nothing they can do about it anyway.
Again, how does this help?
There are so many “annoying” protests that this logic can be applied to that would seem pretty short-sighted in retrospect.
It’s not these people that future generations will think poorly of.
So this is just about what future generations will think, not about solutions?