Disruptive protests are annoying and the best way to get people to hate your agenda. In Finland there’s a group that actively protests climate stuff by taking control of the streets, making people getting to and off from work just annoyed.
You don’t achieve change and can’t further your goals by being a prick to the normal everyday people. All you achieve is them wanting nothing to do with what you are peddling.
Imagine this comment existing before woman’s suffrage.
Mass protests are how change has always happened to the oppressed. The oppressed have always continued to be oppressed when they take the stance of your comment.
Quite a bridge there, to compare governments and companies ruining our habitat to women’s suffrage. Holy hell.
9 to 5 Joe is’t making the decisions and won’t be able to affect the situation apart from voting and activism, and these protests I talked about are only annoying the people the activists should be trying to win over, to be able to make a change.
Suffrage wasn’t about profit driven business, it was people being shit to people, the poor and the rich all together, if we simplify it to the root.
Maybe I missed it but it seems the average Joe voted for people that are responsible for what’s going on right now instead of trying to change direction drastically right?
That’s pretty much it. Now should we hold the politicians responsible, or should we piss on the Joes? I’d personally see the protesters inconveniencing the politicians, and not the Apple Store employee trying to get to his work shift.
Good example in Finland is gay rights, we got those by pressuring politicians, not by chaining ourselves to roads. It’s been proven to work, and the opposite has been seen to just get people fed up.
This is just one of countless examples that we live in capitalist plutocracies — ruled by corporations and the richest family dynasties who make up their majority shareholders — masquerading as “democracies”. Sure, you can vote, but your only options are pre-approved.
When the people causing genocide, war, and ecocide are untouchable, their entire rule of law is invalid.
Kinda relevant: from the latest Private Eye. Just a little insight to the background of the people pushing for this outcome.
The Heritage Foundation who would have guessed it would be in the mix.
Meanwhile the UK still keeps on sending weapon shipments to an actively Genocidal Israel (they recently stopped but 20 out of 300 kinds of such exports).
It didn’t took long to disprove the hopes of anybody who thought New Labour would be anything but a slightly less hard Right than the Tories.
Totally approrpiate, since they’re terrorists endangering the well-being of everyone and the planet. Wait…
I thought that was final Fantasy vii…
when society turns on the people with a conscience, the people with a conscience should turn on society. stop playing nice.
stop playing nice.
What’s your next move, hot shot?
Bruh, I misread the title at first and thought Big Oil was sentenced but the reality is just sad and angering.
Humanity is in mortal danger because of conservatism. If you aren’t fighting conservatism, you aren’t fighting climate change.
Neolibs sell us out to big oil just as much as neocons do. The root problem is capitalism. You cannot fight against climate change without fighting against capitalism
Neoliberals are conservatives. Sadly, we do not have a progressive party in the U.S., so we must choose one of the conservative parties.
To be fair, liberalism, while far better isn’t remotely close to being an adequate solution, but we all need to kick the can down the road by picking whatever least bad option is available to us.
Well, that’s the funny bit: the government in the UK aren’t the Conservatives, they’re New Labour who are Neoliberals, hard Neoliberals even by the standards of the rest of Europe.
Nowadays the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is really just the subset of Morality that’s used in Identity Politics. They’re certainly not different on Economics, not on Quality Of Life for the many, not on a good Future for our Children (which provides a Selfishness-drive reason be an Environmentalist) and certainly not on Environmentalism as a Moral posture.
We get some loud confrontational bullshit from both around various “-isms” all the while they’re both doing what’s best for the most wealthy of society and screw the rest (both present and future) and definitely screw anything that has no money and not capability for action such as Nature.
You see that exact same shit in the US, by they way, as well (in not quite as extreme) in most of Europe.
If you aren’t fighting conservatism you are actively destroying the planet.
I would be more likely to sympathize with JSO if they engaged in direct action against the oil industry instead of the general public. Stopping ambulances and electric cars in traffic does not get the world to abandon oil.
If you’re going to commit a criminal offense regardless, at least target something that actively supports or benefits from the oil industry. They could go full Robin Hood, robbing businesses that support the oil industry and anonymously donating the proceeds to environmental causes. They could threaten car dealerships that sell ICE vehicles. While it is certainly illegal to burn down a gas station, at least that would be an attack on the object of their protests rather than the general public.
Nothing wrong with their stated cause, but their actions don’t support that cause.
Evidence suggests that disruptive protests actually help, rather than hinder organisations like JSO:
It’s all about raising awareness and facilitating discussions.
They would raise more awareness and facilitate more productive discussion and alienate fewer people and have a tangible, measurable effect by taking direct action against car dealership and gas stations.
The kind of “discussion” they have most “facilitated” is how to increase the penalties for impeding traffic. Their only “success” has been winning enough support for legislators to increase penalties and enforcement for “impeding traffic”
I mean, sure, but again the evidence suggest otherwise: https://www.apollosurveys.org/social-change-and-protests/
And as the articles I originally linked above shows the general public may think otherwise, which is understandable.
There have been direct actions recently - they get subjected to media blackout. If you want to shift public sentiment, you need eyeballs - they get eyeballs, and while responses are obviously mixed, they lean positive over time.
They literally DID. The fact you don’t know about it shows why they also do their publicity stunts.
I heard about a car dealership and gas stations being lit on fire by protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. When did JSO protesters do something similar?
It’s not hard to look up.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-61347944
Took 2 seconds.
What part of that is remotely comparable to the car dealership and gas station in Kenosha?
The part where it’s action targeting the oil companies? You know, like you were suggesting they do?
Ah. Thanks for clarifying.
I must confess, I see no noteworthy comparison. I question their commitment and resolve.
