The fact that the comment sections of these posts are always the same just shows how much oil propaganda has affected the situation.
That and people thinking protesting isn't deliberately meant to disrupt the daily lives of people in an attempt to force them to acknowledge there's a problem and do something about it.
By nature protests are supposed to be disruptive to the average person because it's the average person that decides what policies and laws we have.
The problem is the average person is too stupid/ignorant/tired/lazy to realize this and just sees it as a personal attack and reacts with pure emotion.
No. Protests are supposed to change the mind of the average person, or at least bring their attention to a given cause.
Holding someone's time to ransom doesn't help your cause, it just makes people resent you.
Has the UK become more environmentally aware since Just Stop Oil kicked off?
Do you not remember the protests for civil rights? The sit ins? The marches? The protests outside the white house?
Literally every part of what is protesting is based on disrupting everything for the average citizen so the govt is forced to make a change.
The point of protesting is to force action without violence. People blocking traffic or stopping people from entering certain businesses is exactly what protesting is.
Protesting isn't just rallies where people come together to talk about what they all agree on. It's actively forcing people to acknowledge the issue without resorting to violence.
Edit: I didn't see this was a UK post which is my bad but it's still relevant
Do you not remember the protests for civil rights? The sit ins? The marches? The protests outside the white house?
No? I'm from the UK, as is the subject of this article, why would we remember what happened in some other country? I'm also a millennial, would I even remember the protests for civil rights in your country if I had been from there?
Just food for thought is all, you have a point of course :-)
I'm from the UK. Also a millennial. Being ignorant about defining moments in world history can't be pinned on either of those things.
The suffragettes were pretty disruptive, even the peaceful ones. The bombing suffragettes were extremely disruptive.
Yeah I heard women had to be escorted into galleries because they kept slicing up paintings 😆
Ultimately the Suffragists ended up having more of an impact on getting women the vote than the Suffragettes.
Yeah I realized after I made the comment that this was based in the UK. That's my bad. I don't really have an excuse lmao
The commenter is being needlessly pedantic like they aren't aware of the Civil Rights Movement at all. Even assuming they weren't one of the people that studied it, the USA's Civil Rights Movement is a common topic of study in history curricula in the UK because it has a significant cultural impact and is an excellent study of protest, the importance of civil rights, racial tensions, and context of the USA which is a dominant presence across the world.
The Civil Rights Movement had an incredibly low popular support before the Civil Rights Act was passed.
Protests are meant to disrupt. No progress is made unless you have a moderate and an extreme movement. That way the status quo compromises to the moderates to prevent the extreme from gaining ground.
So frankly, Just Stop Oil is too gentle. We won't see change until people get extreme on their protests against fossil fuels.
The USA is a special case though, they refuse to change or progress socially until they have no other option, which means violence is often the only option.
More civilized countries will enact change long before this.
Lmao, I can imagine what you think of France then
France is the reason change usually happens before things get violent.
I do hate the French, but not for that reason.
I think you should look up the history of the guillotine.
You do understand I'm agreeing with you, right? I'm well aware of what a guillotine was used for.
Then your point doesn't make sense. You're calling the US uncivilised for resorting to violence, but not the French who we are talking about historically resorting to violence? And also this is why others don't resort to violence when civilised (by your standards) because they are afraid of guillotines? IDGI.
The French went after the actual people in power, first of all, and they've learned from their past mistakes.
But their contemporary protests have been just as disruptive if not more disruptive than people slowly walking and causing traffic issues
For sure, the Yellow Vests literally blockaded roads and fuel depots across the whole of France.
every country refuses to change or progress socially until they have no other option, which means violence is often the only option.
Sorry, but that's simply wrong. There's plenty of countries that change with the times.
Like when?
New Zealand have enacted women's suffrage, gay marriage, and decriminanalising abortion with no violence at all, simply because the government of the time listened to the people.
How did the anti-suffragettes, homophobes and pro-forced-birthers react?
Huffed, puffed, moaned, and wrung their hands.
Here's a quote from Martin Luther King that I think is very relevant:
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
You posted this twice.
It's relevant twice. Did you read it?
Yes, only once though.
@Ilovethebomb@ThatWeirdGuy1001 Some protests are instead designed to raise the cost of an abusive behavior so the rich ruling class will buy less of it.
Don't waste time trying to speak truth to this kind of power, speak power to oppressors instead. Make sure they understand that we can match ANY level of escalation on their part.
This is how we killed Huntingdon "Life" Sciences: the public already opposed vivisection, but vivisection was on both sides of the ballot.
How is any of that related to blocking roads? How is that "speaking power to oppressors"?
Lol and you all wonder why most surface life on the planet is going to die along with most humans
So long as it does so quietly and without disturbing the neighbors, he's fine with it.
I'm amazed at how few people realise this. I don't agree with jailing this guy but people seem to think that as long as a protest gets noticed by people it MUST be effective.
Arguing with anger makes people who are already on your side agree with you, arguing with calm and logic might actually change a few minds though.
Just Stop Oil are the former and appears to me to be doing nothing to help the effort, do they think that people believe oil is good for the planet and that they're actually making others aware of the environmental impact? Nobody is learning anything but plenty of people are getting pissed off with the cause because it's unnecessarily disruptive and furthers nothing.
Edit: you guys proved the point phenomenally. There's the people already on their side agreeing, meanwhile at least 2 commenters who are anti oil are painted like we coat penguins in it for fun in our free time. Why do so many suggest it's either JSO or ineffective sanctioned protests? Could there not be something in between? What would be so wrong with protesting directly to MPs by the houses of Parliament? You could chain yourself to whatever if you need to make a strong point, throw oil/paint/whatever at 10 downing street, do something that the decision makers will actually notice and have people talking about you favourably. Most conversations about JSO are one side saying they're fucking morons, and the other side naively echoing this chamber like that has any chance at changing anyone's mind.
Ah well, lemmy seems even less flexible than reddit did with its views, so I shouldn't be surprised. There is no room for nuance here.
A JSO representative had a great interview with Alex O'Connor and he basically said that negative attention is still better than no attention.
Yeah and that's the exact outlook that I think is dumb. It might be true if they were trying to make the world aware of some very serious but largely unknown issue, but that's not what's happening here at all.
Nobody learns anything, FEWER people will sympathise with you, and you disrupt people's lives for exactly fuck all.
You must not work in advertising, because it's objective reality that negative attention is better than no attention.
They've been arguing with calm and logic for 30 years and it has changed absolutely nothing. How long should they keep doing it?
Yup. Unfortunately, these people live in an echo chamber of like minded people, so they never realize how far out of touch they are.
I don't think it's out of touch to understand how a protest works. If a protest annoyed you once and made you dislike the cause, that doesn't seem like the protest was doing it wrong, it seems like you were never going to be sympathetic to the cause.
Ironically, people on your side seem to specifically NOT know how protests work. Pissing off the masses does not bring people to your cause.
I'm also sympathetic to the cause and do a lot to improve my carbon footprint, but I'm the bad guy here because I believe that simply pissing off others will not reduce the worlds reliance on oil.
What has actually been achieved with these protests? Do people exist who didn't know oil was bad until they saw someone holding up traffic or chaining themselves to a football goal? It seems like disruption for disruptions sake to me.
You're completely wrong. There was never a protest that didn't piss off the masses. There was never a cause that didn't piss off the masses. Everything pisses off the masses because the masses are whiny crybaby snowflakes. So what is your solution? Sit back and let the government kill us?
You're very much wrong there, I'm actually quite sympathetic to their cause, and would like to reduce my carbon footprint. But stopping people from going about their day just gives the movement a bad name.
Why won't everyone just do their protests respectably (in that small square over there between 5-6pm on Tuesdays of the second week every other month).
Also make sure it's quieter than the sound of traffic.
Is it possible there's something between those two options that could work more effectively and piss fewer people off...?
The fact that the comment sections of these posts are always the same just shows how much oil propaganda has affected the situation.
That and people thinking protesting isn't deliberately meant to disrupt the daily lives of people in an attempt to force them to acknowledge there's a problem and do something about it.
By nature protests are supposed to be disruptive to the average person because it's the average person that decides what policies and laws we have.
The problem is the average person is too stupid/ignorant/tired/lazy to realize this and just sees it as a personal attack and reacts with pure emotion.
No. Protests are supposed to change the mind of the average person, or at least bring their attention to a given cause.
Holding someone's time to ransom doesn't help your cause, it just makes people resent you.
Has the UK become more environmentally aware since Just Stop Oil kicked off?
Do you not remember the protests for civil rights? The sit ins? The marches? The protests outside the white house?
Literally every part of what is protesting is based on disrupting everything for the average citizen so the govt is forced to make a change.
The point of protesting is to force action without violence. People blocking traffic or stopping people from entering certain businesses is exactly what protesting is.
Protesting isn't just rallies where people come together to talk about what they all agree on. It's actively forcing people to acknowledge the issue without resorting to violence.
Edit: I didn't see this was a UK post which is my bad but it's still relevant
No? I'm from the UK, as is the subject of this article, why would we remember what happened in some other country? I'm also a millennial, would I even remember the protests for civil rights in your country if I had been from there?
Just food for thought is all, you have a point of course :-)
I'm from the UK. Also a millennial. Being ignorant about defining moments in world history can't be pinned on either of those things.
The suffragettes were pretty disruptive, even the peaceful ones. The bombing suffragettes were extremely disruptive.
Yeah I heard women had to be escorted into galleries because they kept slicing up paintings 😆
Ultimately the Suffragists ended up having more of an impact on getting women the vote than the Suffragettes.
Yeah I realized after I made the comment that this was based in the UK. That's my bad. I don't really have an excuse lmao
The commenter is being needlessly pedantic like they aren't aware of the Civil Rights Movement at all. Even assuming they weren't one of the people that studied it, the USA's Civil Rights Movement is a common topic of study in history curricula in the UK because it has a significant cultural impact and is an excellent study of protest, the importance of civil rights, racial tensions, and context of the USA which is a dominant presence across the world.
The Civil Rights Movement had an incredibly low popular support before the Civil Rights Act was passed.
Protests are meant to disrupt. No progress is made unless you have a moderate and an extreme movement. That way the status quo compromises to the moderates to prevent the extreme from gaining ground.
So frankly, Just Stop Oil is too gentle. We won't see change until people get extreme on their protests against fossil fuels.
The USA is a special case though, they refuse to change or progress socially until they have no other option, which means violence is often the only option.
More civilized countries will enact change long before this.
Lmao, I can imagine what you think of France then
France is the reason change usually happens before things get violent.
I do hate the French, but not for that reason.
I think you should look up the history of the guillotine.
You do understand I'm agreeing with you, right? I'm well aware of what a guillotine was used for.
Then your point doesn't make sense. You're calling the US uncivilised for resorting to violence, but not the French who we are talking about historically resorting to violence? And also this is why others don't resort to violence when civilised (by your standards) because they are afraid of guillotines? IDGI.
The French went after the actual people in power, first of all, and they've learned from their past mistakes.
But their contemporary protests have been just as disruptive if not more disruptive than people slowly walking and causing traffic issues
For sure, the Yellow Vests literally blockaded roads and fuel depots across the whole of France.
Or, you know, anyone who wanted a bit more revolution than them.
I'm sure I will regret asking this but why?
They sunk the rainbow warrior.
Just generally being arrogant twats.
Please stop, your embarrassing us.
You sound dumb as shit.
every country refuses to change or progress socially until they have no other option, which means violence is often the only option.
Sorry, but that's simply wrong. There's plenty of countries that change with the times.
Like when?
New Zealand have enacted women's suffrage, gay marriage, and decriminanalising abortion with no violence at all, simply because the government of the time listened to the people.
How did the anti-suffragettes, homophobes and pro-forced-birthers react?
Huffed, puffed, moaned, and wrung their hands.
Here's a quote from Martin Luther King that I think is very relevant:
You posted this twice.
It's relevant twice. Did you read it?
Yes, only once though.
@Ilovethebomb @ThatWeirdGuy1001 Some protests are instead designed to raise the cost of an abusive behavior so the rich ruling class will buy less of it.
Don't waste time trying to speak truth to this kind of power, speak power to oppressors instead. Make sure they understand that we can match ANY level of escalation on their part.
This is how we killed Huntingdon "Life" Sciences: the public already opposed vivisection, but vivisection was on both sides of the ballot.
How is any of that related to blocking roads? How is that "speaking power to oppressors"?
Lol and you all wonder why most surface life on the planet is going to die along with most humans
So long as it does so quietly and without disturbing the neighbors, he's fine with it.
I'm amazed at how few people realise this. I don't agree with jailing this guy but people seem to think that as long as a protest gets noticed by people it MUST be effective.
Arguing with anger makes people who are already on your side agree with you, arguing with calm and logic might actually change a few minds though.
Just Stop Oil are the former and appears to me to be doing nothing to help the effort, do they think that people believe oil is good for the planet and that they're actually making others aware of the environmental impact? Nobody is learning anything but plenty of people are getting pissed off with the cause because it's unnecessarily disruptive and furthers nothing.
Edit: you guys proved the point phenomenally. There's the people already on their side agreeing, meanwhile at least 2 commenters who are anti oil are painted like we coat penguins in it for fun in our free time. Why do so many suggest it's either JSO or ineffective sanctioned protests? Could there not be something in between? What would be so wrong with protesting directly to MPs by the houses of Parliament? You could chain yourself to whatever if you need to make a strong point, throw oil/paint/whatever at 10 downing street, do something that the decision makers will actually notice and have people talking about you favourably. Most conversations about JSO are one side saying they're fucking morons, and the other side naively echoing this chamber like that has any chance at changing anyone's mind.
Ah well, lemmy seems even less flexible than reddit did with its views, so I shouldn't be surprised. There is no room for nuance here.
A JSO representative had a great interview with Alex O'Connor and he basically said that negative attention is still better than no attention.
Yeah and that's the exact outlook that I think is dumb. It might be true if they were trying to make the world aware of some very serious but largely unknown issue, but that's not what's happening here at all.
Nobody learns anything, FEWER people will sympathise with you, and you disrupt people's lives for exactly fuck all.
You must not work in advertising, because it's objective reality that negative attention is better than no attention.
They've been arguing with calm and logic for 30 years and it has changed absolutely nothing. How long should they keep doing it?
Yup. Unfortunately, these people live in an echo chamber of like minded people, so they never realize how far out of touch they are.
I don't think it's out of touch to understand how a protest works. If a protest annoyed you once and made you dislike the cause, that doesn't seem like the protest was doing it wrong, it seems like you were never going to be sympathetic to the cause.
Ironically, people on your side seem to specifically NOT know how protests work. Pissing off the masses does not bring people to your cause.
I'm also sympathetic to the cause and do a lot to improve my carbon footprint, but I'm the bad guy here because I believe that simply pissing off others will not reduce the worlds reliance on oil.
What has actually been achieved with these protests? Do people exist who didn't know oil was bad until they saw someone holding up traffic or chaining themselves to a football goal? It seems like disruption for disruptions sake to me.
You're completely wrong. There was never a protest that didn't piss off the masses. There was never a cause that didn't piss off the masses. Everything pisses off the masses because the masses are whiny crybaby snowflakes. So what is your solution? Sit back and let the government kill us?
You're very much wrong there, I'm actually quite sympathetic to their cause, and would like to reduce my carbon footprint. But stopping people from going about their day just gives the movement a bad name.
Why won't everyone just do their protests respectably (in that small square over there between 5-6pm on Tuesdays of the second week every other month).
Also make sure it's quieter than the sound of traffic.
Is it possible there's something between those two options that could work more effectively and piss fewer people off...?
It's been tried. There isn't.