927
Stone Rule
(i.imgur.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
927 points (100.0% liked)
196
16411 readers
1362 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It was as pointless as everything else, that's why they did it, it's screaming into the void to get attention.
Are there though? I'm old enough to remember this has gone on for decades without anyone doing anything of significance and now we're at the actual edge of global catastrophe and STILL people are like "hmn, those kids should be recycling." Bruh, you and so many people have no idea how many lives are going to be lost in the next century while every milquetoast liberal and conservative in the developed world roll their eyes and get pissed at slight annoyances like... checks notes colored corn starch on rocks you will never visit.
It's like trying to shake someone in a dream to get them to pay attention. And the more you scream and hit them, the more they look ahead like zombies.
They HAVE sprayed BP's factories and lots and machines, they have sabotaged equipment and chained themselves to machines and have caused material harm to companies like BP, but that doesn't get any fucking coverage because media doesn't want to encourage "violent activism" for fear of turning away viewers like YOU who are annoyed by such things.
You don’t have to sell me on climate change protests. I’ve attended a few myself.
I’m criticizing the delivery, not the message. The majority of people that heard that protest were those who travelled from around the world to see Stonehenge. Their plans were ruined, and they don’t care any more about climate change than they did that morning. Some may even resent the protesters.
Performative radicalism is only compelling to those already behind a cause. It’s discrediting to everyone else, who should be your target audience.
I don't care fucking one bit. It's the same shit.
That's the same argument white liberals used during the civil Rights movement.
Is it? I used to bring literature to protests, now I bring QR codes. I’ve personally educated hundreds, if not thousands on initiatives over the years. That drives more change than ruining a family trip. Being compelling has been more successful than being loud in my experience.
I've heard of them. I've never heard of you. Your experience is insufficient data to be making this grandiose of a statement.
I advocate for the cause I protest, not myself. How many people do you think will be compelled to care or learn more about climate change after this protest? How many people’s plans to see Stonehenge were ruined, leading to resentment of the cause?
Activism isn’t like Trump’s campaign. Bad press is in fact, bad press.
They have compelled more discussion in this single thread than you have with your whole life. Your moral grandstanding is nice. Effective tactics are nicer.
Discussion of what? Awareness of what? How do you see debating the method as success in discussion or awareness of a problem? If it were successful, we’d be sharing talking points, research materials, compelling speeches, etc.
This was an egotistical attempt to get noticed. It worked as intended.
We're not talking about anything of substance because of you and people like you purposefully and disingenuously distorting the facts. Its fucking cornstarch. I haven't had kids because I think the world isn't going to be around for my grand kids and its selfish to create new life with that knowledge. But you keep talking about the fucking cornstarch as if these people smacked your mother. Shut the fuck up. Get some perspective you pompous dolt.
How often do you successfully get others to care about a cause with abrasive condescension?
Really?
Not exactly a good thing..... One of the problems with making a lot of noise is drowning out the voices of others on the same side.
Political capital is a thing, utilizing it in a protest that doesn't really accomplish anything but turning public sentiment against your cause is kinda a dumb way to spend it.
You say they're spending political capital. I say they're building political capital. They're creating a fuss. They're creating noise, which can then be turned into action. What are you doing?
The people who think of this as a net positive are already supportive of climate change initiatives. So who exactly are they building political capital with?
How? In what situation is there a problem that is more easily solved when people "make a fuss"?
Not turning potential allies into enemies?
What are you doing?
This argument is pointless. Neither of you is right. Arguing for or against optics is pointless.
"You know, I don't disagree that the coloreds should have more rights, but did they really need to sit at the lunch counter all day? I couldn't sit at the counter and it made my lunch take so much longer. Really inconvenient to everyone trying to get some food.
I just wished they'd go about it differently. They're liable to make people even less accepting of them if they keep pulling stunts like that."
I hope you know that's what you sound like. Like, read the first paragraph of MLK Jr's Letter from Birmingham Jail and you'll see your argument in the "white moderate":
Those people were protesting that they weren't allowed to sit at lunch counters. These people are not protesting the color of Stonehenge.
I didn't travel to see Stonehenge and I'm hearing about it. So is everyone in this thread.
And I see that now that the stones have been shown to be undamaged the dismissal of the protest is pivoting to "the poor people taking recreational flights have had their entire trip ruined!!!"
If people become less likely to take unnecessary flights because protestors might "ruin their trip" I would consider that an absolute win.
This argument is pointless. Neither of you is right. Arguing for or against optics is pointless.
It's not just pointless, it's potentially damaging to the cause. I don't mind if someone rubs against the grain of public sentiment for a cause, so long as the way they do it actually accomplishes a goal.
And how does cornstarching rocks, or defacing art make any kind of difference? Is there any possible outcome that benefits the cause? It seems like the only thing this accomplishes is drowning out any other news about climate change for 2 to 3 weeks.
Just because someone disagrees with you on how to spend the very limited amount of political capital accumulated for climate change, does not mean they are less informed on the subject than you.
I don't give a fuck about Stonehenge, but it's stupid to believe that others do not. It's also pretty stupid to ignore concepts like blowback and public sentiment.
Lol, they arent afraid of turning away viewers, they are worried about turning away advertisers. They are part of the capital class preserving the fossil fuel industry. Of course they don't want to spread violent activism. They would much rather all climate activists display protest that they can utilize to turn the public against the cause.
Which begs the question, why are these groups providing the media with ineffective protests that turn public opinion against the cause and garter a ton of negative press in the first place?
Glad you're here to set us all right. Surely we'll all be okay as long as people are teaching us to be civil and not... harm the cause. God forbid the cause be harmed.
I'm done, a lot of us are. Good luck.
I never claimed that I wanted people to remain "civil", you can attack that strawman as you wish.
I don't mind people engaging in violent disobedience or civil disobedience, every MLK needs a Malcom X. However, I just don't see the benefit in this particular situation. If you are going to do something that could potentially harm public sentiment you should at least be doing something that materially changes things for the positive.
Get off your high horse, were all dealing with the same problem here. Just because someone differs in opinion on how political capital should be spent, it doesn't mean your perspective has a monopoly on morality or anything.
You're lost. Move on. The only person on a high horse here is you telling people that they're protesting wrong.
Sorry for believing a protest should help your cause more than it harms it?
You do know this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress, right?
Even bad press is still press? I don't have an opinion on Stonehenge yet; I'm pretty sure the art they "defaced" was only the protective casing; and I haven't researched them enough to form a true opinion of my own
But now I'm curious as to whether (or not) "I think" their motives are "ignorant" or somehow "nefarious" at times. I've seen them in the news for a while now, and I haven't always agreed with their course of action... sometimes I believe it to be too impulsive. But they're still doing it. They've forced a discussion that keeps the issue in the forefront, and now it has me wanting to look-into their situation more. And I do believe-in what they're advocating, even if I'm not sure it's the "correct" way to do it
Yet here we are, talking about it. "There's no such thing as 'Bad Press'", I guess? Are they right?... maybe. Are they detracting from the plight?... also, maybe. Am I sure of my opinion of their protests?... no, not really. Seems like something I'll have to read more about.
So maybe, mission accomplished (in-progress)? Idk, but I see the merit regardless of their actions
Stonehenge wasn't harmed. The pigment is water soluble, it washes off with the rain. No chemical damage.
Right, but we are talking about it knowing the consequences of not enacting changes. In the US fox news is watched by something like 40% of active voters. Meaning a significant portion of voters actively distrust news about climate change, another significant portion do not think about it on a day to day basis.
Giving the news network ammunition like this only further entrenches these audiences in anti climate change reactions.
Would knowing that this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress that lives in a 33m dollar home affect your opinion?
I've seen you mention the oil heiress thing a couple of times. The heiress in question is Aileen Getty. She helped found the Climate Emergency Fund which is basically used to fund nonviolent climate protests like these.
The emergency climate fund also supported the Dutch protests against the fossil fuel industry that ended with the Dutch government proceeding with a plan to end fossil fuel subsidies.
The emergency climate fund has had some success against the fossil fuel industry, so I don't think there is any evidence that this thing is a psyop to get public opinion to be against climate protesters.
It's very possible that Aileen Getty actually feels bad about how her family gained its fortune, and she is trying to reverse the damage by donating to these causes. If this was a fossil fuel industry psyop, they would do a much better job at hiding who was funding it.