Yea, it’s important when doing direct action that you target correctly at politicians and purportators not the general public.
Don’t throw paint on a work of art, throw it on a CEO.
Don’t block and ambulance block an MP leaving there house
Don’t glue you hand to the road, glue it to a pipeline.
What if it’s an oil painting though…..
[deleted]
Multi billion pound corporations put plastic in our balls. No problem.
Someone uses non permanent paint on glass.
“OI MAATE WHAT ARE YOU DOING! STOP IT YOUR SO ANNOYING 😡😡”
People spreading news about activists and not realising that is their one goal and that you’re therefore proving their methods effective is hilarious
The papers had it all fucked up. it was Just stop Oil (painting) – They were a collection of disenfranchised watercolour artists.
Has Pingu painted what he intends to do to that seal? I didn’t know he was so Dexter-ish.
Ngl, I’ve no patience for these idiots. They can pay the exorbitant prices for their x-free goods all they want, doesn’t mean the rest of us should have to.
But isn’t the point that we put more importance on a painting than we do the planet? And your “I don’t agree with their methods” is an indirect acknowledgment that the planet is less valuable than a picture.
I guess the idea is something like this:
1. Do something outrageous that gets attention.
2. Use that attention to draw attention to something more important that warrants attention.
3. Use that attention to encourage positive action towards remedying the more important thing.
The strategy tends to fail for the following reasons:
1. The outrageous thing gets the attention, but the attention is negative and focussed on the outrageous thing.
2. The more important thing already had attention, but now attention has been diverted towards the outrageous thing, which is now somewhat tainted by the negative association.
3. If something positive (instead of criminal or inconvenient) was done instead, in the name of drawing attention and encouraging positive action (e.g. as demonstrated by charity fund-raising events) then this would seem to be more effective and have the added benefit of not being criminal or inconvenient.
I often suspect that people with aggressive or destructive urges find a way to psychologically justify their aggressive or destructive behaviour by identifying outlets that tangentially align both emotionally and morally, except that the moral virtue signalling often plays second fiddle to the blatantly immoral actions.
Justifying civil disobedience or criminal inconvenience as a “protest” is like justifying cruel pranks as “comedy”. We can all have a laugh without breaking laws and upsetting people, and we can all help to combat human-caused climate change without breaking laws and upsetting people.
Having said that, I expect there are cases, hypothetically, where breaking laws can be both morally justified and effective.
I’m fine with them throwing paint on art.
It’s when they block the roads I feel they’re crossing the line.
If you agree with their message but not with their method, the solution is to join them and try to influence their method
At this point what’s left to try other than going all Luigi on execs and politicians?
Gets you talking about them.
I love how so many people who think ‘I agree I just like their methods’ don’t realise that the fucking point is to spread awareness, at any cost. If you don’t like their way of executing them, ***stop making it worth it for them lmao.***
Oh no, a iconic painting got it’s protective casing dirty… oh no you are going to be 20 minutes late for work…
If people used even a 10% of the effort they have when it comes to hating on the Just stop Oil members, climate change would be over and cancer would also be cured by now.
I enjoy how many times they managed to put paint on one painting. Almost like they KNEW, it wasn’t actually damaging the painting, and causing the outrage was the point….
I don’t agree with their goals. “Just stop oil” is insanely unachievable. “Lessen oil”, “Phase out oil”, yes 100% behind this. But not to just stop. If a plan is not actionable then all it is doing is making the planners feel better about themselves.
The one I think we all really should have backed was “Insulate Britain”. Now **that** was an achievable goal! Economically positive as well, as projects like this can spur employment, and it would provide an instant benefit to reducing our energy use, especially in winter, and especially for the poorest people, who are most likely to have older less heat-keeping houses. This would provide the biggest benefit in reducing their cost of living, and probably save more than the winter fuel allowance as well.
You know something I realised the other day?
How we view JSO is probably quite similar to how people viewed the suffragette movement back when women didn’t have the right to vote.
18 comments
Yea, it’s important when doing direct action that you target correctly at politicians and purportators not the general public.
Don’t throw paint on a work of art, throw it on a CEO.
Don’t block and ambulance block an MP leaving there house
Don’t glue you hand to the road, glue it to a pipeline.
What if it’s an oil painting though…..
[deleted]
Multi billion pound corporations put plastic in our balls. No problem.
Someone uses non permanent paint on glass.
“OI MAATE WHAT ARE YOU DOING! STOP IT YOUR SO ANNOYING 😡😡”
People spreading news about activists and not realising that is their one goal and that you’re therefore proving their methods effective is hilarious
The papers had it all fucked up. it was Just stop Oil (painting) – They were a collection of disenfranchised watercolour artists.
Has Pingu painted what he intends to do to that seal? I didn’t know he was so Dexter-ish.
Ngl, I’ve no patience for these idiots. They can pay the exorbitant prices for their x-free goods all they want, doesn’t mean the rest of us should have to.
But isn’t the point that we put more importance on a painting than we do the planet? And your “I don’t agree with their methods” is an indirect acknowledgment that the planet is less valuable than a picture.
I guess the idea is something like this:
1. Do something outrageous that gets attention.
2. Use that attention to draw attention to something more important that warrants attention.
3. Use that attention to encourage positive action towards remedying the more important thing.
The strategy tends to fail for the following reasons:
1. The outrageous thing gets the attention, but the attention is negative and focussed on the outrageous thing.
2. The more important thing already had attention, but now attention has been diverted towards the outrageous thing, which is now somewhat tainted by the negative association.
3. If something positive (instead of criminal or inconvenient) was done instead, in the name of drawing attention and encouraging positive action (e.g. as demonstrated by charity fund-raising events) then this would seem to be more effective and have the added benefit of not being criminal or inconvenient.
I often suspect that people with aggressive or destructive urges find a way to psychologically justify their aggressive or destructive behaviour by identifying outlets that tangentially align both emotionally and morally, except that the moral virtue signalling often plays second fiddle to the blatantly immoral actions.
Justifying civil disobedience or criminal inconvenience as a “protest” is like justifying cruel pranks as “comedy”. We can all have a laugh without breaking laws and upsetting people, and we can all help to combat human-caused climate change without breaking laws and upsetting people.
Having said that, I expect there are cases, hypothetically, where breaking laws can be both morally justified and effective.
I’m fine with them throwing paint on art.
It’s when they block the roads I feel they’re crossing the line.
If you agree with their message but not with their method, the solution is to join them and try to influence their method
At this point what’s left to try other than going all Luigi on execs and politicians?
Gets you talking about them.
I love how so many people who think ‘I agree I just like their methods’ don’t realise that the fucking point is to spread awareness, at any cost. If you don’t like their way of executing them, ***stop making it worth it for them lmao.***
Oh no, a iconic painting got it’s protective casing dirty… oh no you are going to be 20 minutes late for work…
If people used even a 10% of the effort they have when it comes to hating on the Just stop Oil members, climate change would be over and cancer would also be cured by now.
I enjoy how many times they managed to put paint on one painting. Almost like they KNEW, it wasn’t actually damaging the painting, and causing the outrage was the point….
I don’t agree with their goals. “Just stop oil” is insanely unachievable. “Lessen oil”, “Phase out oil”, yes 100% behind this. But not to just stop. If a plan is not actionable then all it is doing is making the planners feel better about themselves.
The one I think we all really should have backed was “Insulate Britain”. Now **that** was an achievable goal! Economically positive as well, as projects like this can spur employment, and it would provide an instant benefit to reducing our energy use, especially in winter, and especially for the poorest people, who are most likely to have older less heat-keeping houses. This would provide the biggest benefit in reducing their cost of living, and probably save more than the winter fuel allowance as well.
You know something I realised the other day?
How we view JSO is probably quite similar to how people viewed the suffragette movement back when women didn’t have the right to vote.
Comments are closed.