Honestly yes, I don't think people truly realise how deeply in the shitter we are. Best outcome would be to duck off with it now, in a year. Carbon zero. But this won't happen.
If you use any modern product you wint be carbon zero. So please stop wearing clothes, using the internet , living in a home, eating any type of food.
You're right, since the only two options are the destruction of the planet or to stop using literally anything ever at all, I guess I'll fucking kill myself now
Yes? That's why we'd have to go after the corporations, the problem arises at production. Truth is we're overpopulated because of the bosch-haber cycle, which is fueled by fossil fuels.
The alternative is certain extinction
How about we lower our collective emissions by tossing you into a volcano, instead? Would you like that?
Just like my ancestors
I think most people are more than aware of climate change and climate change issue
As a matter of fact they are not. Otherwise we would see a drastic shift in policy and voting behaviour, given how strongly the climate changed in the past decade. But instead people vote conservative and reactionary again, after they lost their homes in wildfires, floods and storms that can be reliably linked to climate change, and whose occurence renders their home area unliveable in the long run.
We had a flood two years ago in Germany killing over 200 people. Our former conservative party, now populist reactionary, removed a law for flood protection just two month prior to the devastating flood. And the people most affected voted for them again in the upcoming election. And that was after the parties chancellor candidate laughed heartily in the background while the president held a speech mourning the victims.
The people are either dumb, or ignorant or both. They'd rather die than change anything in the slightest way.
Go on Facebook and look for the comment section of news coverage on EVs or anything climate related. They are at most vaguely familiar with the issue, or deny it in some shape or form
No we don't, this disruptive behavior just makes people angry against you, it doesn't do anything for your goals, even if you have good intentions.
I agree. It's time to stop the nonviolent protests and start the violent protests.
Unfortunately, being angry for our cause is better than being apathetic towards our cause, so we’ll take what we can get while the planet melts and ecosystems die.
I really disagree with this premise.
For example, where I've worked, I've generally found it easy to make improvements that solely benefit the environment, even though they are virtually always more expensive and carry no other advantages, and often additional disadvantages.
Since the more recent protests, though, and especially after we all nearly lost our jobs due to the antics of a handful of protestors, that support has just gone. Being greener is no longer and end unto itself, and people don't want to either be seen as supporting their cause or 'helping' the people who cause real problems for everyday people.
It may not be logical, but even I am quieter about my environmentism because I don't really want to be associated with people who proudly block ambulances and cause pain for thousands of regular people.
Because ultimately, nobody's going to 'just stop'. We're not here due to the scheming of a few people, there are a lot of reasons oil is currently so ubiquitous, and fixing it is going to be a fairly gradual process. Fortunately, oil isn't the only way we can fix emissions, and so progress over spans of a decade or two, when that progress is going in parallel, can yield dramatic results.
My concern is that antics like these are going to slow or even reverse some of the political will to suffer the short term pain required to make these changes as quickly as we need.
Blocking the ambulance was unfortunate but they had glued themselves to the road prior to its arrival and it simply did a u-turn and carried on and the passenger was fine. It’s not like they set out to block emergency vehicles on purpose.
Meanwhile:
In 2018, more than 8 million people died from the pollution caused by coal, oil, gas, and other fossil fuels. That accounts for nearly 1-in-5 of all deaths worldwide.
So on one hand we got people being inconvenienced and ultimately being fine, and on the other hand 5,749 people have died in the 6 hours since I originally commented here…
I agree it's not particularly impactful, and most would have made an exception, but it only takes one person to argue that it' doesn't matter, or to defend it as something deliberate on the news to upset a lot of people.
Id say the biggest problem with this reasoning is that these protests do not save millions of people, and that that number would be easy to reduce, that the only reason that those occur is that nobody fancies doing anything about it.
In the same way, my employer going out of business would be a big deal to me, my colleagues and a few others, but it's ultimately unimportant compared to climate change. But if that happened due to these protests, it wouldn't actually fix anything.
I don't dislike these protests because I don't agree with the core message, I dislike them because I genuinely see them as counter productive. Talking to people about climate issues at the moment feels like I've jumped back in time 20 years, and mainstream beliefs 5 years ago now get you put in the "tree hugging hippie" catagory, as people think about "those protestors".
This can't change overnight, as I've said, there no 'just' anything when it comes to the fuel and infrastructure that powers our world. The faster we change, the more impact there will be on quality of life, these are sacrifices that everyone will have to bear, and so the main battle is the political will, it's about people across the world choosing to make sacrifices. This is why poisoning the otherwise positive image of environmentalism and pissing lots of people off for intangible 'gains' genuinely concerns me.
Id say the biggest problem with this reasoning is that these protests do not save millions of people, and that that number would be easy to reduce, that the only reason that those occur is that nobody fancies doing anything about it.
Yes, you’ve inexplicably stumbled upon the very reason these protests exist in the first place, while simultaneously not getting it AND ALSO setting the bar for success at the protestors themselves accomplishing what governments and oil companies should be doing.
And all because what?
It inconveniences you slightly while our planet and people go off the rails. Nicely done, this is precisely the type of thing we are fighting against just to get some damn renewables going faster.
Nobody being angry at you even listens to your course thatd the point.
Its like spitting in someone's face and telling them their shoes are untied.
It's not like that at all, though. It's like interrupting a large games event to protest drilling for oil. No one has been spat on, and it's about something much more important than shoelaces.
It comes down to the exactly same thing. Nobody cares about your saying, everyone hates you.
I care, and I don't hate them. Matters more than some fallout boys jackoff tournament or whatever it was
Protests are likely older than your last name, and have worked about as long.
You can tell kinda in the same way you can tell unions work. The people theyre meant to be used against get reeeeeaal agitated when they start happening.
There is a difference between protests and throwing tantrums...
What part of climate change do you not take seriously?
I disagree, some people get angry and then think about ways to make it stop, which gets them thinking about why people are doing the protests in the first place.
Sorry but disagreement is only possible for opinions, i stated a fact. Your "protest" ruins peoples day, they don't think about your course, they think you are a asshole.
If i destroy your phone and try telling you that you need to think about the environment im pretty certain you would be to angry at me to even listening to what i want to say...
Disagreement works just fine when youre incorrect about your fact.
Im just not however...
I mean, you objectively are. How a random person might react to a protest isnt a fact. Some people might react that way. Many will not. It is not the factual response to have a specific response to an event.
It your opinion that more people will respond in that way. Nothing factual about it.
A random person? No. A society? Pretty much.
Thats even less a fact, and far more baseless opinion.
You can't predict a single person, you can definitely predict a societys opinion on something, thats called statistics.
No don't if your going protest do it right your not sending a message by disrupting someone's nice day out your just going be a nuisance plus why a gaming convention what the fuck does a gaming convention have to do with the environment
100% agree. Just being a nuisance isn't enough. These protestors really ought to be attacking fossil fuel execs.
folks need to start causing real, material damage to fossil infrastructure at the least
this wont stop unless the expenses of fossil fuels outweigh the profits, and people need to become those expenses
That's a more ideal way of doing targeting big businesses and fossil fuel execs through peaceful forms of protesting a good example of this is how some people in London and Glasglow are protesting ULEZ by vandalising ULEZ cameras if your going protest make sure it doesn't affect anyone in the general public
You do it then. Be the change you want to see in this world.
It still wouldn't change anything, other then get more security and anonymity for their immediate replacements.
Yeah exactly, that would be protesting against the actual problem not jsut disrupting random shit
What a thing to cowardly type from behind your keyboard you wanker.
What do you recommend? not being disruptive means you are completely ignored by everyone.
Not every attention is good attention.
Apathy is the true enemy, so you’re wrong.
Hate towards you makes people just listen even less.
Well There's plenty of ways of protesting and getting the word out that don't involve getting in the way or destroying/nicking property you can have peaceful demonstrations ideally populated like a city square where you and a massive crowd of people gather and make your voices heard im fairly certain that's called a rally or you use art as a way of protesting graffiti etc you can also boycott a organisation or government institution and you can do a picket protest as well
That shit doesn’t work.
Real change happens when everyone is pissed.
It worked for tons of demonstrations through out history
List some important global changes that happened because people protested in a way that did not bother anyone.
Why a game convention though? Does the gaming industry use any oil?
It's about getting the message out and being disruptive. Standing on a street corner with a sign does nothing as the news ignores you.
But disrupting a major event/traffic or attempting to destroy a priced piece of art with soup out of all things makes you and your organisation look like a massive pile of shit there are way way way better ways of protesting such as picketing as you said or rallys if you bring enough people say 200 or 300 you'll appear on the social media and prehaps local and regional news prehaps if you make a large enough splash you might sway the general public to your cause
You don't. Protests happen all the time in the hundreds. How many have you heard of? I haven't heard of any unless it gets violent. Unions strikes are disruptive so you hear about them. Cost of living marches walking past government buildings or protesting outside of them? Nothing.
Want to know the last march I heard about that was large and non disruptive? It was on a Youtube video. The youtubers didn't even know it was happening.
Blocking a road is boring now so isn't being reported as much, disrupting a gaming tournament gets news.
Rallies help don't get me wrong but they are often ignored. The disruptive, novel protests get news coverage.
plenty of protests have happened through history. Some have been more successful than examples being Marton Luther Kings rallies woman suffrage movements the salt march singing revolution plus with the world of the Internet if you make a large enough rucus you'll have eyes and ears on you from across the world
Okay lets take the civil rights movement. Incredibly disruptive and even violent at times, albeit usually in response to violence. Rosa Parks for example sat on the front of a bus and got arrested. She didn't move. She stopped a bus and all the passengers on the bus until she was arrested, nobody critisises her because some people were late that day!
Highschollers trying to desegregate school needed armed guards to just get in the building. They didn't go "dang! Best hold up a sign outside, don't want to stop others learning"
Many performed sit-ins. Sit-ins take up space and make it hard for others to use the space for its intended purpose.
They were very disruptive and people hated them for it. It wasn't only speeches and marches.
Women sufferage involved arson, women learning martial arts and beating people up, vandalism, and sex boycots, once again not just speeches and marches.
But pwease pwotest quieter! We twying to be ignowant in peace!
Rosa Parks for example sat on the front of a bus and got arrested. She didn’t move. She stopped a bus and all the passengers on the bus until she was arrested, nobody critisises her because some people were late that day!
I think a lot of people tend to look at Rosa Parks' act through a modern lens and say, "she wasn't disruptive, she was just sitting there," not realising that it was incredibly disruptive at the time. What she did seems like nothing by today's standards because her protest worked.
Women sufferage
Martyrs, too. Emily Davison threw herself in front of a horse race and died for it in the name of women's suffrage. There's debate about whether she intended to die, or whether she may have just been trying to attach suffragette colours to the King's horse, but the fact is that she was consciously willing to die for her cause. Plus she went on hunger strike in prison to the point where she was force-fed on multiple occasions.
Suffragettes going on hunger strike in prison, and the prison authorities violently force-feeding them to the point where they sustained fairly serious injuries, was common in the early 1910s. It's not particularly pleasant reading, but there's an article from the Museum Of London that talks about some of the lengths suffragettes went to with their hunger strikes that is worth reading for anyone who isn't familiar.
I think everyone should learn about the suffrage movement and the lengths they were willing to go to to fight for women's rights, particularly with civil protest being a somewhat relevant topic over the last few years.
When did anyone destroy art with soup?
Just Stop Oil threw soup on artwork in a museum. It wasn't destroyed all the souped art had protective glass shields and they knew that which is why they did it. Basically just made a mess that you can clean up with a cloth and mop.
They've souped quite a few artworks before.
Well that's the opposite of an answer to my question, it's an example of a time they didn't destroy art with soup
Attempted to destroy art with soup read into it if you want to it's van goths sunflower painting thankfully the morons didn't account for the painting being protected by some protective glass
They knew full well that the glass was there, which is why they did it to that painting. What makes you think they're morons???
Hey, while we're talking about it, why do we seem to care so much about a painting that wasn't damaged, but we don't seem to put nearly as much effort into hating on the people and companies that are actually destroying the world we live on?
Because “we” is an idiot who doesn’t understand what they are talking about but want to appear as if they do.
I'm genuinely trying to understand what information you're using to come to the conclusion that they're an idiot
Does the average person tune in to watch O&G industry conventions?
I suppose that there's plastic in various electronic devices, like controllers.
There's plastic in literally everything welcome to the modern world
Well, computers run on electricity, and gaming is a frivolous use, I guess?
Well this is way better than blocking roads and glueing your hands on the tarmac
Nah, I'd say it's about the same. I like both tactics!
"gamign", said the gaming journalist
At least we know it isn't an AI generated article
That's not any better
Shitheads will be shitheads, what else is new?
Self-report or...?
If you don't think this is the behavior of shitheads, I'm very glad to not make your acquaintance.
I understand why they are doing this and I support them.
So, no. I do not think they're shitheads. Only the people who sit in their warm home, in their comfort zone, going with the flow, calling other people shitheads.
It must be nice to be so naive and idealistic still, it's cute. You go right ahead thinking that then, sport. :3
Good for them, we need way more of this.
Honestly yes, I don't think people truly realise how deeply in the shitter we are. Best outcome would be to duck off with it now, in a year. Carbon zero. But this won't happen.
If you use any modern product you wint be carbon zero. So please stop wearing clothes, using the internet , living in a home, eating any type of food.
You're right, since the only two options are the destruction of the planet or to stop using literally anything ever at all, I guess I'll fucking kill myself now
Yes? That's why we'd have to go after the corporations, the problem arises at production. Truth is we're overpopulated because of the bosch-haber cycle, which is fueled by fossil fuels.
The alternative is certain extinction
How about we lower our collective emissions by tossing you into a volcano, instead? Would you like that?
Just like my ancestors
I think most people are more than aware of climate change and climate change issue
As a matter of fact they are not. Otherwise we would see a drastic shift in policy and voting behaviour, given how strongly the climate changed in the past decade. But instead people vote conservative and reactionary again, after they lost their homes in wildfires, floods and storms that can be reliably linked to climate change, and whose occurence renders their home area unliveable in the long run.
We had a flood two years ago in Germany killing over 200 people. Our former conservative party, now populist reactionary, removed a law for flood protection just two month prior to the devastating flood. And the people most affected voted for them again in the upcoming election. And that was after the parties chancellor candidate laughed heartily in the background while the president held a speech mourning the victims.
The people are either dumb, or ignorant or both. They'd rather die than change anything in the slightest way.
Go on Facebook and look for the comment section of news coverage on EVs or anything climate related. They are at most vaguely familiar with the issue, or deny it in some shape or form
No we don't, this disruptive behavior just makes people angry against you, it doesn't do anything for your goals, even if you have good intentions.
I agree. It's time to stop the nonviolent protests and start the violent protests.
Unfortunately, being angry for our cause is better than being apathetic towards our cause, so we’ll take what we can get while the planet melts and ecosystems die.
I really disagree with this premise.
For example, where I've worked, I've generally found it easy to make improvements that solely benefit the environment, even though they are virtually always more expensive and carry no other advantages, and often additional disadvantages.
Since the more recent protests, though, and especially after we all nearly lost our jobs due to the antics of a handful of protestors, that support has just gone. Being greener is no longer and end unto itself, and people don't want to either be seen as supporting their cause or 'helping' the people who cause real problems for everyday people.
It may not be logical, but even I am quieter about my environmentism because I don't really want to be associated with people who proudly block ambulances and cause pain for thousands of regular people.
Because ultimately, nobody's going to 'just stop'. We're not here due to the scheming of a few people, there are a lot of reasons oil is currently so ubiquitous, and fixing it is going to be a fairly gradual process. Fortunately, oil isn't the only way we can fix emissions, and so progress over spans of a decade or two, when that progress is going in parallel, can yield dramatic results.
My concern is that antics like these are going to slow or even reverse some of the political will to suffer the short term pain required to make these changes as quickly as we need.
Blocking the ambulance was unfortunate but they had glued themselves to the road prior to its arrival and it simply did a u-turn and carried on and the passenger was fine. It’s not like they set out to block emergency vehicles on purpose.
Meanwhile:
So on one hand we got people being inconvenienced and ultimately being fine, and on the other hand 5,749 people have died in the 6 hours since I originally commented here…
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487
I agree it's not particularly impactful, and most would have made an exception, but it only takes one person to argue that it' doesn't matter, or to defend it as something deliberate on the news to upset a lot of people.
Id say the biggest problem with this reasoning is that these protests do not save millions of people, and that that number would be easy to reduce, that the only reason that those occur is that nobody fancies doing anything about it.
In the same way, my employer going out of business would be a big deal to me, my colleagues and a few others, but it's ultimately unimportant compared to climate change. But if that happened due to these protests, it wouldn't actually fix anything.
I don't dislike these protests because I don't agree with the core message, I dislike them because I genuinely see them as counter productive. Talking to people about climate issues at the moment feels like I've jumped back in time 20 years, and mainstream beliefs 5 years ago now get you put in the "tree hugging hippie" catagory, as people think about "those protestors".
This can't change overnight, as I've said, there no 'just' anything when it comes to the fuel and infrastructure that powers our world. The faster we change, the more impact there will be on quality of life, these are sacrifices that everyone will have to bear, and so the main battle is the political will, it's about people across the world choosing to make sacrifices. This is why poisoning the otherwise positive image of environmentalism and pissing lots of people off for intangible 'gains' genuinely concerns me.
Yes, you’ve inexplicably stumbled upon the very reason these protests exist in the first place, while simultaneously not getting it AND ALSO setting the bar for success at the protestors themselves accomplishing what governments and oil companies should be doing.
And all because what?
It inconveniences you slightly while our planet and people go off the rails. Nicely done, this is precisely the type of thing we are fighting against just to get some damn renewables going faster.
Nobody being angry at you even listens to your course thatd the point.
Its like spitting in someone's face and telling them their shoes are untied.
It's not like that at all, though. It's like interrupting a large games event to protest drilling for oil. No one has been spat on, and it's about something much more important than shoelaces.
It comes down to the exactly same thing. Nobody cares about your saying, everyone hates you.
I care, and I don't hate them. Matters more than some fallout boys jackoff tournament or whatever it was
Protests are likely older than your last name, and have worked about as long.
You can tell kinda in the same way you can tell unions work. The people theyre meant to be used against get reeeeeaal agitated when they start happening.
There is a difference between protests and throwing tantrums...
What part of climate change do you not take seriously?
I disagree, some people get angry and then think about ways to make it stop, which gets them thinking about why people are doing the protests in the first place.
Sorry but disagreement is only possible for opinions, i stated a fact. Your "protest" ruins peoples day, they don't think about your course, they think you are a asshole.
If i destroy your phone and try telling you that you need to think about the environment im pretty certain you would be to angry at me to even listening to what i want to say...
Disagreement works just fine when youre incorrect about your fact.
Im just not however...
I mean, you objectively are. How a random person might react to a protest isnt a fact. Some people might react that way. Many will not. It is not the factual response to have a specific response to an event.
It your opinion that more people will respond in that way. Nothing factual about it.
A random person? No. A society? Pretty much.
Thats even less a fact, and far more baseless opinion.
You can't predict a single person, you can definitely predict a societys opinion on something, thats called statistics.
Amen
No don't if your going protest do it right your not sending a message by disrupting someone's nice day out your just going be a nuisance plus why a gaming convention what the fuck does a gaming convention have to do with the environment
100% agree. Just being a nuisance isn't enough. These protestors really ought to be attacking fossil fuel execs.
folks need to start causing real, material damage to fossil infrastructure at the least
this wont stop unless the expenses of fossil fuels outweigh the profits, and people need to become those expenses
That's a more ideal way of doing targeting big businesses and fossil fuel execs through peaceful forms of protesting a good example of this is how some people in London and Glasglow are protesting ULEZ by vandalising ULEZ cameras if your going protest make sure it doesn't affect anyone in the general public
You do it then. Be the change you want to see in this world.
It still wouldn't change anything, other then get more security and anonymity for their immediate replacements.
Yeah exactly, that would be protesting against the actual problem not jsut disrupting random shit
What a thing to cowardly type from behind your keyboard you wanker.
What do you recommend? not being disruptive means you are completely ignored by everyone.
Not every attention is good attention.
Apathy is the true enemy, so you’re wrong.
Hate towards you makes people just listen even less.
Well There's plenty of ways of protesting and getting the word out that don't involve getting in the way or destroying/nicking property you can have peaceful demonstrations ideally populated like a city square where you and a massive crowd of people gather and make your voices heard im fairly certain that's called a rally or you use art as a way of protesting graffiti etc you can also boycott a organisation or government institution and you can do a picket protest as well
That shit doesn’t work.
Real change happens when everyone is pissed.
It worked for tons of demonstrations through out history
List some important global changes that happened because people protested in a way that did not bother anyone.
Why a game convention though? Does the gaming industry use any oil?
It's about getting the message out and being disruptive. Standing on a street corner with a sign does nothing as the news ignores you.
But disrupting a major event/traffic or attempting to destroy a priced piece of art with soup out of all things makes you and your organisation look like a massive pile of shit there are way way way better ways of protesting such as picketing as you said or rallys if you bring enough people say 200 or 300 you'll appear on the social media and prehaps local and regional news prehaps if you make a large enough splash you might sway the general public to your cause
You don't. Protests happen all the time in the hundreds. How many have you heard of? I haven't heard of any unless it gets violent. Unions strikes are disruptive so you hear about them. Cost of living marches walking past government buildings or protesting outside of them? Nothing.
Want to know the last march I heard about that was large and non disruptive? It was on a Youtube video. The youtubers didn't even know it was happening.
Blocking a road is boring now so isn't being reported as much, disrupting a gaming tournament gets news.
Rallies help don't get me wrong but they are often ignored. The disruptive, novel protests get news coverage.
plenty of protests have happened through history. Some have been more successful than examples being Marton Luther Kings rallies woman suffrage movements the salt march singing revolution plus with the world of the Internet if you make a large enough rucus you'll have eyes and ears on you from across the world
Okay lets take the civil rights movement. Incredibly disruptive and even violent at times, albeit usually in response to violence. Rosa Parks for example sat on the front of a bus and got arrested. She didn't move. She stopped a bus and all the passengers on the bus until she was arrested, nobody critisises her because some people were late that day!
Highschollers trying to desegregate school needed armed guards to just get in the building. They didn't go "dang! Best hold up a sign outside, don't want to stop others learning"
Many performed sit-ins. Sit-ins take up space and make it hard for others to use the space for its intended purpose.
They were very disruptive and people hated them for it. It wasn't only speeches and marches.
Women sufferage involved arson, women learning martial arts and beating people up, vandalism, and sex boycots, once again not just speeches and marches.
But pwease pwotest quieter! We twying to be ignowant in peace!
I think a lot of people tend to look at Rosa Parks' act through a modern lens and say, "she wasn't disruptive, she was just sitting there," not realising that it was incredibly disruptive at the time. What she did seems like nothing by today's standards because her protest worked.
Martyrs, too. Emily Davison threw herself in front of a horse race and died for it in the name of women's suffrage. There's debate about whether she intended to die, or whether she may have just been trying to attach suffragette colours to the King's horse, but the fact is that she was consciously willing to die for her cause. Plus she went on hunger strike in prison to the point where she was force-fed on multiple occasions.
Suffragettes going on hunger strike in prison, and the prison authorities violently force-feeding them to the point where they sustained fairly serious injuries, was common in the early 1910s. It's not particularly pleasant reading, but there's an article from the Museum Of London that talks about some of the lengths suffragettes went to with their hunger strikes that is worth reading for anyone who isn't familiar.
I think everyone should learn about the suffrage movement and the lengths they were willing to go to to fight for women's rights, particularly with civil protest being a somewhat relevant topic over the last few years.
When did anyone destroy art with soup?
Just Stop Oil threw soup on artwork in a museum. It wasn't destroyed all the souped art had protective glass shields and they knew that which is why they did it. Basically just made a mess that you can clean up with a cloth and mop.
They've souped quite a few artworks before.
Well that's the opposite of an answer to my question, it's an example of a time they didn't destroy art with soup
Attempted to destroy art with soup read into it if you want to it's van goths sunflower painting thankfully the morons didn't account for the painting being protected by some protective glass
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63254878
https://news.sky.com/story/just-stop-oil-protesters-throw-tomato-soup-over-van-goghs-sunflowers-masterpiece-12720183
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/14/just-stop-oil-activists-throw-soup-at-van-goghs-sunflowers
Also here's the video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LTdquzu-BXg
???
https://youtube.com/shorts/NYUqSv1ug5o
They knew full well that the glass was there, which is why they did it to that painting. What makes you think they're morons???
Hey, while we're talking about it, why do we seem to care so much about a painting that wasn't damaged, but we don't seem to put nearly as much effort into hating on the people and companies that are actually destroying the world we live on?
Because “we” is an idiot who doesn’t understand what they are talking about but want to appear as if they do.
I'm genuinely trying to understand what information you're using to come to the conclusion that they're an idiot
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/shorts/NYUqSv1ug5o
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Does the average person tune in to watch O&G industry conventions?
I suppose that there's plastic in various electronic devices, like controllers.
There's plastic in literally everything welcome to the modern world
Well, computers run on electricity, and gaming is a frivolous use, I guess?
Well this is way better than blocking roads and glueing your hands on the tarmac
Nah, I'd say it's about the same. I like both tactics!
"gamign", said the gaming journalist
At least we know it isn't an AI generated article
That's not any better
Shitheads will be shitheads, what else is new?
Self-report or...?
If you don't think this is the behavior of shitheads, I'm very glad to not make your acquaintance.
I understand why they are doing this and I support them. So, no. I do not think they're shitheads. Only the people who sit in their warm home, in their comfort zone, going with the flow, calling other people shitheads.
It must be nice to be so naive and idealistic still, it's cute. You go right ahead thinking that then, sport. :3