Comment by powerofm@lemmy.ca on I’ve got a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty baby, and I’ll write your name: Just Stop Oil paint private jets hours after Taylor Swift’s lands

I think this sends a much stronger message than stone henge

The fact that most comments here seem to be talking about stone henge says otherwise. If not for what happened to stone henge recently, people might not have paid this much attention to this.

So close together? Probably not. Look at the comments. everyone is just talking about Stonehenge.

Almost as if when you target the problem it sends a better message than doing some random shit.

Those idiots destroying paintings and monoliths belong behind bars. That won’t convince anyone with even half a brain to think. Just destroys something and makes everyone angry.

Have you ever seen the pictures of the ocean after the gulf oil spill? They never did fix that - they just sprayed chemicals that sunk the oil to the bottom of the gulf, creating a dead zone (with help from agricultural chemical runoff from the Mississippi River). And the people there never did get treated for all their medical issues, even though most of their food comes out of that ocean. That’s also why we need Medicare for all btw - so we can make sure the EPA, CDC, and other government organizations are actually doing their job and people are actually taken care of when something goes wrong.

Hear me out, painting private planes don’t effect 98% of humanity not everyone has an interest in the arts.

Destroyed? Let’s talk about that.

As you know, Stonehenge has been standing in the rain for 3,000 years.

Following the industrial revolution, fossil fuel emissions made that acid rain. It attacked every cultural artifact standing outdoors for decades.

I think that the people who did that belong behind bars.

Those idiots destroying paintings and monoliths belong behind bars.

If only you were so vitriolic about the fossil fuel execs destroying the entire planet.

But think of the art!!!

ThOsE iDiOtS!1!

Says the moron while not even taking 3 seconds to understand what they did and why they did it. Lol

Look how angry everyone gets about art and architecture whilst not even remotely having the same reaction about climate change and what it’s doing to our planet.

Not gonna lie, this was my thought process for some time. But protests aren’t meant to be comfortable.

I think that’s kinda the commenters point. Morons almost have a chance of connecting a few dots when it’s private jets. Half a step removed, and nope, morons won’t even attempt understanding

I think the point is to ragebait people into reading about it.

An educational campaign doesn’t work.

People get angry when the protests disrupt their day.

Peaceful protests happen literally everyday in the US in nearly every city and hear nothing about them.

The only way it gets visibility is it has to be disruptive, and the only way to get them to read/learn about it is to hook them in. And if Faux News has taught anyone anything, it’s that ragebaiting is fucking effective.

anyone that thinks people will say ‘oh these guys are doing something I feel is stupid, I better learn what they have to say’ has never met a single human in their life.

That’s funny, you realize not everyone will jump to the conclusion it was ‘stupid’ right away? Most will say, “they did what? Why?” Aka curiosity. We learn more. We understand. Then we decide if it’s stupid or not.

Yet that’s pretty much exactly what I did.

destroying paintings and monoliths

But… they didn’t do either of those things. They threw soup at glass, and for the Stonehenge thing they used washable powder paint. They were publicity stunts with no damage done.

Going after a painting that’s behind glass is VERY different to going after the stone henge that has no protective layer, and most importantly of all, has nothing to do with the target of their cause

saying it destroyed the stone henge is a major exaggeration, saying it did no damage is also just as wrong. The English heritage society emphasised that it was only no VISIBLE damage left, however they also said it did cause damage.

It’s just like how you can’t touch walls in caves because any change in the oils and stuff in our skins can cause long term damage even though there’s no immediate visible damage

Hey, just went back to this conversation now that the UNESCO report claims that the highway construction project is putting Stonehenge in real danger. What’s your opinion on that?

Ah, I can feel that lemmy is going mainstream.

But they’re…rocks!

Goddammit they’re MINERALS, Marie!

So are caves, yet humans can very easily cause damage to them accidentally, let alone deliberately

How do you think those rocks will fare when the average temperature rises a few degrees?

Do you think the big stones will avoid damage while humans are fighting wars over water?

Are those precious rocks going to be ok when countries near the equator become uninhabitable, and the UK has to violently defend its borders from millions of climate refugees?

Do you think it can still be considered a cultural heritage site after all the humans are dead?

It’s going to be too cold to visit once the Gulf Stream stalls from reduced ocean salinity, and Britain’s climate is more like northern Canada or Alaska.

I never once said I disagree with their message, but doesn’t mean I need to agree with their methods

If their message is that oil is bad and that government should be doing more, they should be targeting oil companies, lobbyists, government officials, companies that have excess waste and chemical use (coke im looking at you)… Not heritage listed stuff that’s mostly maintained by volunteers

If you actually agreed with their message, then I don’t think you would take the time to whinge about the safety of the precious rocks.

Yeah but it’s a lot harder to paint climate activists as the bad guys when you say things like “they souped our glass and powdered our rocks”, so better to just lie, right?

Ugh I HATE it when my glass gets souped.

yep. I can get behind this one

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

I’ve got a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty baby, and I’ll write your name: Just Stop Oil paint private jets hours after Taylor Swift’s lands(juststopoil.org)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Community stats

Community moderators