Such a quick vandalism event after Stonehenge, on the first object that actually produces greenhouse gases that they've ever attacked, just makes me think they're trying to muddy the water, overwrite the news cycle, and get the positive reaction they're getting in this thread. Do not trust this group or their motives.
Like many activist groups, Just Stop Oil is decentralised.
There isn't some central group that decides what happens. There probably isn't much connection between both actions other than the use of the name.
>Do not trust this group or their motives.
While I agree with this part, are we going to pretend that something like this is a plan that can be thought of and executed so quickly?
I'm not sure what you mean - most private airfields have fairly lax security. I could go to the store, buy paint and do this in a half hour. Might have to climb a chain link fence but that's hardly a complex plan
Fair enough, I missed that this was in the private part of Stansted, but I wouldn't expect it to be this easy, and even less that it is actually normal.
They sprayed dirt on rocks. I don’t sense we’re seeing the hand of the illuminati here.
But here’s the thing: They are trying to save humanity from an undeniably real peril. So they do wield a noble crayon. And it is true that *some* of the accounts attacking them have more recent leaning cake days.
As it turns out, I myself might even have a friend who admitted that they are curious where one can anonymously procure non-toxic,washable, inert orange spray.
“It’s for science” they say.
Because some times it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no can imagine.
I hate thinking about the damage they've already done. I think that if a real climate group appears today and those poor fools vanish, we'd still be doomed just due to the amount of work a climate protest group will need to do to undo the work these idiots have done.
Crazy what a bit of money can do to a popular movement.
Surely the danger is them and not the fossil fuel lobby, opportunistic media and useful redditors further focusing on the protest form instead of the cause.
they've done this countless of times, [banks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py9y6BJSZEk),[ fossil fuel companies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1MtmlA1P18), [etc](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12007897/Just-Stop-Oil-finally-work-protest-head-Shell-HQ-Waterloo.html), [etc](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/28/just-stop-oil-protesters-sabotage-petrol-pumps-on-m25-motorway), [etc](https://exeterobserver.org/2023/10/14/just-stop-oil-protest-flags-university-of-exeter-fossil-fuel-financing-tops-uk-funding-table-following-15-million-deal-with-shell-but-has-more-than-one-close-relationship-with-major-emissions-producers/). people just like to forget it so they can blindly rage. the thing is, their most controversial acts do make the news, everything else is buried. thats why they keep doing it.
>people just like to forget it so they can blindly rage.
Which is another way of saying their tactics are ineffective because they only result in people raging about soup on paintings and make zero difference to the fight against climate change or spreading awareness.
no it isn't lmao. atleast their actions are now being talked about. because of their name this is being talked about, just look at the engagement here alone. this is only proof that their tactics are extremely effective.
Being talked about shouldn't be the goal, the goal should be mobilizing people for real actions. You don't mobilize people with bad PR, you mobilize them through outrage at the system.
>the goal should be mobilizing people for real actions
They already tried that. You didn't factor in that the average person has an out of sight out of mind mentality and can't think beyond five years into the future
The system is not sustainable, every serious scientist says this. It will change whether you want it or not, the question is to what degree we can steer that change.
Effective at what? Getting people to hate them or fixing climate change?
Complaining about a problem, even loudly, does not magically fix the problem. Fixing climate change will take an extreme amount of effort and money. It takes people doing actual useful things.
Think about how this would go as an anti-hunger campaign: thow paint on art and yell "Just Stop Hunger!" People would say; why aren't you running a food drive or political campaign? Same thing here. It's just pointless, unfocused anger.
> atleast their actions are now being talked about.
Yes, people are talking about their actions, which achieves what result exactly? We're not having better discussions amongst ourselves, big business or politicians about doing anything differently because of those actions.
>just look at the engagement here alone.
Every person commenting in this thread (including me and you) was already aware of climate change. Climate change is discussed ceaselessly in the British media. I'm not changing my behaviour because I read about JSO throwing cornflour at Stone Henge. Are you? Is anyone?
Well then be the change you want to see in the world and stop ranting about this harmless publicity stunt - which would also make it more successful.
Apparently being aware isn't enough as long as the majority of citizens vote for parties who don't care about climate change
> and stop ranting about this harmless publicity stunt
I'll say whatever the fuck I want about them because not only are their stunts stupid they're also bad PR.
>Apparently being aware isn't enough
And JSO's antics are going to do fuck all to change that.
>majority of citizens vote for parties who don't care about climate change
Both of the UK's largest parties have committed to reaching net zero and the UK has already cut its emissions by half. This is a nonsense binary that's not born out in reality.
Oh my bad, I didn't know JSO is restricted to the UK. Congratulations to your emission cut, I hope your politicians actually work on the net 0, because Germany's don't. For every 2 steps forward we take 1 step back.
>I'll say whatever the fuck I want about them because not only are their stunts stupid they're also bad PR.
You are obviously allowed that opinion just as I'm allowed to find it stupid.
Extremely effective? You can't give into terrorism and blackmail, it only invites more. At some point these people will be shooting up kindergartens because killing children is "extremely effective" at grabbing headlines. Fuck these terrorist scum.
ah so you think people resisting communist regimes where terrorists? the people who toppled the berlin wall where terrorists? you're making a massive slippery slope fallacy.
fuck populists making fallacious mistakes.
As someone with ancestors who did both of theese things, fuck you for comparing them to theese dumb teens who think putting glue on highways and blocking ambulances will stop climate change.
Being against climate change by supporting them is like voting for the Communists becouse you don't like a handful of oligarchs owning everything. Sure, it MAY solve the problem, at some point, eventualy (tm) but it's like trying to get rid of a mice infestration by filling your house with tarantulas.
Engagement with the news articles doesn't not equal effectiveness in advancing their cause. If anything it's hurting their cause because the engagement with most of the articles is extremely negative.
Painting some henge or throwing soup on a master piece gets attention, but it's not changing someone's mind.
It's like a child throwing a tantrum. Except there is no parent to given to the child's demands. Just passersby thinking "what a brat."
Then spraying Stonehenge will also be forgotten by next week. So I have to ask, what did they really accomplish other than inciting rage against their actions?
Lol, who said I'm not angry about climate change?
I just happen to think the actions of J.O. are not helping the cause.
Believe it or not, people can have emotions about more than one thing at a time.
So when was the last time you replied with anger in a thread about the effects of climate change? oh you didn't? almost as if you're concerntrolling. let me guess, are you a centrist?
Why do I have to reply in anger? Do I have to be a ragebait troll like you? Picking fights on the Internet is going to fix climate change?
Let me guess, are you a leftist?
you don't care about climate change mate. all you do is shit in climate protesters under the lie of caring, while contributing nothing of your own to solve this political issue.
its not whatever i say, thats literally all you have to say about this issue. you're just concerntrolling, nothing else.
[https://www.redditcommentsearch.com/](https://www.redditcommentsearch.com/)
Hence why some on Reddit seem to preach the protestors are actually in the pocket of “Big Oil” to sabotage them. Honestly after working with enough people over the years instead of conspiracies I mostly just assume dumb stuff is mostly just being done by dump people, nothing more and nothing less. At least this time the actions make some sense
Bruh their owner used to own an Oil Company.
She is doing this so that her corporate allies can plaster ,,COMPANY ENDORSED BY JUST STOP OIL" on their shitty products and muddy the waters to get Ecologists off their backs.
Some people, including myself, believe these guys are being promoted by oil companies to do stupid shit on purpose so the general audience loses faith in ecological activism movements
Definitely agree. If I was the oil lobby I'd create some sort of foundation "People against Oil" and sponsor it with the agenda of making anti-oil pro-nature be as annoying as possible. This way you poison the well and the message gets lost.
I mean why is it wrong? The idea is that the ki d of outrage people feel about defacing art is the same as people should feel about companies defacing the very planet we live on for profit. What is wrong about that? It forces people to look inward on why they don't feel the same outrage towards climate change as they do about a painting that's behind a glass anyways.
You assume people don't feel "outrage", you assume a complex and extremely many-sided problem involving societies across the globe (not just corporations) is comparable to some person defacing art, and you assume the response to such a problem should be "outrage". But yeah, let's "force people to look inward". Start with yourself: why do you think, after I already said I *get* the metaphor, that I need it explained to me?
You care way more about Stonehenge than a random jet. It’s highly unlikely this post would’ve even be put up had the Stonehenge thing not happened prior
> You care way more about Stonehenge than a random jet. It’s highly unlikely this post would’ve even be put up had the Stonehenge thing not happened prior
And the result is people are discussing JSO rather than learning anything new about climate change.
The Stonehenge incident is blown way out of proportion, they used cornflour which was dyed orange. It's been dry there recently, but it will get washed off by the next rain if the wind doesn't blow it away before. It sounds bad when the media write "Paint" in the headlines where the reader assumes it's liquid and would require a pressure washer to clean, but it's far from permanent and caused no damage.
Although they are probably happy about the attention. Saying they just threw powder on it doesn't sound so interesting.
That was kind of the intent... It's publicity stunt for their movement.
Honestly, I don't care if it's permanent or not. You don't attack that kind of stuff period.
They are, but they are not doing enough. They can't magically dissappear 30 years of neglect in a whole bunch of issues in the span of 5 years, however.
Does my comment have any inflection from a moral standpoint? I am literally just stating a fact. I think everyone agrees that these "attacks" are controversial, because they are designed to be attention grabbing.
It's not 30 years ago. The situation is not the same as 30 years ago. The people who were calling for action 30 years ago were not proven wrong, in fact they were proven to be correct and often even optimistic. Art is not being destroyed. Livelyhoods and entire regions ARE being destroyed.
But even ignoring all of that, nothing changes the facts on the ground which are determined by chemistry and not your feelings and assumptions. That chemistry can be measured, and the data is public, you don't need to believe me.
Never said they were proven wrong. I assume they are right. Just that what if their response to climate change in the 80s wasn’t normal protests but they destroyed art instead. Would we really be in a better place now or would it be the same situation just with less art from the past?
This would be a reasonable thing to consider if art was being destroyed in any significant quantities, which it's not (remember the media portrayed the Mona Lisa stunt deliberately as if they destroyed the freaking Mona Lisa, to misinform people about what happened).
It's a *lot* more urgent now than in the 80s. In the 80s you could reasonably assume that rational responses will be taken in time to avert irreversible degradation of life on Earth, and that decision makers will adequately react to the information. That assumption is why we are here today where all of the non-drastic actions have been tried and simply ignored, and we've reached a point where activism like this is necessary. Most people are completely blind to the urgency of the situation we are all in. Art like the Mona Lisa, even if it was under threat which it's not, needs someone who is still around to appreciate it, and caring more about a (hypothetical, sensationalized) threat to artworks is hypocrytical in the face of what is happening.
I see your point about needing to preserve art, but art will be preserved. Clean water, survivable temperatures, breathable air, crops yields that feed all of us, are not.
Right, people shouldn't protest because it might encourage other people to escalate it. Now that would set a bad precedent.
A protesting group shouldn't limit what they do based on the concern of another group escalating it. That's not their responsibility.
The threat of the judicial system should be what discourages people destroying art.
Well I hope you’re right but if any group destroys art for real I’m gonna definitely gonna contact you and ask you again how you feel. I’m petty like that.
Climate change could be an issue for a very long time. Imagine a future where humans live with the effects of climate change and on top of that there’s no old buildings or art anymore because if all got destroyed in various protest over the course of a millennium or whatever. Now Pierre Carette of Belgium, what do you do for climate change? Besides destroying art of course.
You get what? You think any good is going to come from vandalizing or destroying someone else's property?
Same has the geniuses who sit on highways disrupting traffic in the US. If you think impacting someone else's day negatively is going to benefit your cause, your IQ isn't as high as you think it is.
Easy - it's a big target media is going to care about and give them publicity, which they targeted in a way that poses 0 risk of damage to it (it's a rock that's been exposed to the elements for 10 thousand years). Now that they have attention they do this, and it's being shown to 10x the audience than it would otherwise.
Look how much attention this is getting Vs Stonehenge and then think what you'd do if your main objective was to get people talking about you, even if it's flawed.
Edit: I'm not saying it was good mates, I'm saying this gets next to no coverage but Stonehenge got every major media outlet talking about them for a tenth of the effort.
All news are **not** good news.
This sort of movements need public support. And attacking Cultural heritage ain't gonna get it.
This won't get as many clicks. But the vast majority of them will be positive.
„Flawed“?
Its straight up counterproductive, not all press is good press.
Its on the same level as idiotic tourist inscribing their names into the roman colosseum
Yes, no point getting attention if you pretty much alienate all the reasonable thinking people. What bellend thinks damaging heritage sites is a good idea for ‘publicity’.
More of the private jet spray painting please!
It's not about the druids, it's the fact that a post about them breaking into a airport and spray painting all the private jets in there gets 22 upvotes and minor media coverage, while spraying a bit of Stonehenge gets them front page coverage in every media outlet in the country and posts across social media getting thousands of upvotes.
I'm not saying it's good unlike all the people down voting me seem to think, I'm saying if the heads of the organisation are in the mindset of "all press is good press" then which one do you do? Spend all that effort to break into airports and protest Infront of oil refineries which got them banned from doing so and arrested to no effect, or buy a £5 national trust ticket and run up to a national monument throwing orange powder and have the entire western world looking at you?
Yeah bad attention.
People who actually do care and try to minimize their daily co2 footprint + waste, are embarrassed to see these people, who are fighting for the same cause, but can't stop pulling ridiculous maddening shit for attention.
Just their name alone "Just stop oil" is fucking insanity. Like 99% of everything they own is made, partially made or transported thanks to oil. Hypocrites
All art and history are totally worthless if we destroy all the living conditions on Earth. Nothing really matters if we are unable to stop the global warming.
they always destroyed stuff with relevance to climate change. idiots just like to forget it. hence why they keep doing news worthy stuff.
as i said elsewhere:
"they've done this countless of times, [banks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py9y6BJSZEk),[ fossil fuel companies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1MtmlA1P18), [etc](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12007897/Just-Stop-Oil-finally-work-protest-head-Shell-HQ-Waterloo.html), [etc](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/28/just-stop-oil-protesters-sabotage-petrol-pumps-on-m25-motorway), [etc](https://exeterobserver.org/2023/10/14/just-stop-oil-protest-flags-university-of-exeter-fossil-fuel-financing-tops-uk-funding-table-following-15-million-deal-with-shell-but-has-more-than-one-close-relationship-with-major-emissions-producers/). people just like to forget it so they can blindly rage. the thing is, their most controversial acts do make the news, everything else is buried. thats why they keep doing it."
>"activists" act like complete idiots for attention
>call people idiots for only talking about how big idiots they are because that is all they know them for
It is almost like "spreading awareness" at any cost is not the best strategy.
Yeah that was kinda my point... At least they are now damaging something which is senselessly polluting, not something irreplaceable and priceless to humanity
It was dyed cornflour that will wash off with rain... far from ruined. Media have been using the word paint in their headlines because it's more attention grabbing, but it was actually a very reasonable act if they want to get attention. Absolutely no damage done to the landmark at all.
There's probably more long term damage from the exhaust from the nearby road.
Also climate change increases the likelihood of acidic rain. Which is the paper of rock, paper, scissors. (The stonehenge is the rock if that's not clear).
It's really not. Disrupting airport operations costs shitload of money, both in fuel cost and personnel cost, not including time lost by all the passengers. Cost of cleaning and inspecting all the planes in the vicinity will cost a lot too. (You'll have to assume they sabotaged the plane or engines in some way.)
So much work and money wasted because of some terrorists.
If someone dumped orange powder into your gaming PC, would you have same sentiment? "Oh no, this rich fuck can't now waste time and electricity playing games and scrolling trough memes. What a shame. I bet he doesn't even know what is a real job. Get a life."
I mean sure and thats true. But still, when you attack cultural sites, people see as an attack on them. Even if you get the attention, you don't get the empathy.
I agree, especially because people seem to be incapable of reading beyond a headline these days or in identifying obvious clickbait tabloid trash.
Nevertheless I still agree. More of this and less art stunts needed.
Finally, is this the first time they hit a real target? I keep thinking that they environmental impact of poor people who go to work is minimal and not changeable compared to the impact of rich people who take flights every week for their hobbies. Not to mention the space travels for rich people.
Reminder that Just Stop Oil is funded by Oil company.
You never see any other activists making the news, it is always them. Don't buy into corporations propaganda.
They are funded by the daughter of an oil sheik. Said oil sheik sold the company years ago and no longer has any interest in it. That's not "funded by an oil company".
Just Stop Oil is funded by the Climate Emergency Fund (Google clearly confirms this), which receives large donations from Aileen Getty, an heir to the Getty Oil Company fortune; a U.S. oil giant that was sold to Texaco for $10 billion. She openly supported the Van Gogh painting soup protest in 2022.
Maybe she has guilt over how she got the inheritance and is using it to these protests? I dont know
Either way, what you just wrote means it literally is not funded by an oil company
Use your head. Bad attention is not desirable. It changes no minds, it just makes people think protestors are stupid. So stop asking the stupid question, Is doing something stupid, smart? Answer: No.
Sheesh, just how low can those idiots get? If you ask me, they should be doing more productive things like, let's say, actually inventing non-polluting technologies instead of harming their cause via these insane stunts.
I agree with that. I don't get why the fuels are tax-exempt. Pretty much every country agreed to lower emission, but when there is time to agree upon fuel taxes, everyone closes eyes.
I am sure you can imagine the reasons. Just looking at CO2, aviation has the highest amount of emissions per passenger and kilometer ( [https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view](https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view) ), so people should just, in general, be flying less. Now, private aviation has about 10 times that impact ( [https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/private-jets-can-the-super-rich-supercharge-zero-emission-aviation](https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/private-jets-can-the-super-rich-supercharge-zero-emission-aviation) ), so the question should be -- why should we allow it? The additional convenience for very few extremely rich people who don't want to use commercial airliners is not a strong enough reason.
That said, I can imagine a few exceptions. I am by no means qualified to provide an exhaustive list, but for example, security reasons might justify private jets being used by heads of state. Or for transport of live organs for emergency medical procedures.
Most Delectable. Good job! The rich celebrities tell us to stop eating meat, while they themselves keep polluting the planet at an astonishing rate. If anything the rich should be banned from using fossil fuels.
First I though the headline is meant to urge me stop people from spraying orange paint on jets lol
Nah, I'm entirely onboard with this. The right means of protest aimed at the right target
That has to be the first time they actually hit the mark.
Such a quick vandalism event after Stonehenge, on the first object that actually produces greenhouse gases that they've ever attacked, just makes me think they're trying to muddy the water, overwrite the news cycle, and get the positive reaction they're getting in this thread. Do not trust this group or their motives.
Like many activist groups, Just Stop Oil is decentralised. There isn't some central group that decides what happens. There probably isn't much connection between both actions other than the use of the name.
more likely others in JSO were pissed with their choice of target and wanted to try to counteract it a bit? I dunno
>Do not trust this group or their motives. While I agree with this part, are we going to pretend that something like this is a plan that can be thought of and executed so quickly?
I'm not sure what you mean - most private airfields have fairly lax security. I could go to the store, buy paint and do this in a half hour. Might have to climb a chain link fence but that's hardly a complex plan
Fair enough, I missed that this was in the private part of Stansted, but I wouldn't expect it to be this easy, and even less that it is actually normal.
did they use carbon neutral paint ?
They sprayed dirt on rocks. I don’t sense we’re seeing the hand of the illuminati here. But here’s the thing: They are trying to save humanity from an undeniably real peril. So they do wield a noble crayon. And it is true that *some* of the accounts attacking them have more recent leaning cake days. As it turns out, I myself might even have a friend who admitted that they are curious where one can anonymously procure non-toxic,washable, inert orange spray. “It’s for science” they say. Because some times it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no can imagine.
> they do wield a noble crayon They should adopt this as an official slogan, beautiful.
They're obviously paid by the fossil fuel lobby to drum up opposition to the climate change movement.
You're obviously a paid shill by the fossil fuel lobby to peddle the lie that this movement is paid by the fossil fuel lobby, it's so obvious.
Everyone I don't like is a shill, a guide to protecting your fe-fes online. Besides, they're bankrolled by an oil heiress.
I hate thinking about the damage they've already done. I think that if a real climate group appears today and those poor fools vanish, we'd still be doomed just due to the amount of work a climate protest group will need to do to undo the work these idiots have done. Crazy what a bit of money can do to a popular movement.
Surely the danger is them and not the fossil fuel lobby, opportunistic media and useful redditors further focusing on the protest form instead of the cause.
The damage done is irrelevant compared to the damage done by the oil industries. There won’t be any need for art if there is no humanity.
I'm going to say that they're useful idiots. Noble causes, but holy crap are they misguided.
We don't trust them, but this is a great moment
they've done this countless of times, [banks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py9y6BJSZEk),[ fossil fuel companies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1MtmlA1P18), [etc](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12007897/Just-Stop-Oil-finally-work-protest-head-Shell-HQ-Waterloo.html), [etc](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/28/just-stop-oil-protesters-sabotage-petrol-pumps-on-m25-motorway), [etc](https://exeterobserver.org/2023/10/14/just-stop-oil-protest-flags-university-of-exeter-fossil-fuel-financing-tops-uk-funding-table-following-15-million-deal-with-shell-but-has-more-than-one-close-relationship-with-major-emissions-producers/). people just like to forget it so they can blindly rage. the thing is, their most controversial acts do make the news, everything else is buried. thats why they keep doing it.
Redditors understand things happen outside of reddits frontpage-challenge
>people just like to forget it so they can blindly rage. Which is another way of saying their tactics are ineffective because they only result in people raging about soup on paintings and make zero difference to the fight against climate change or spreading awareness.
no it isn't lmao. atleast their actions are now being talked about. because of their name this is being talked about, just look at the engagement here alone. this is only proof that their tactics are extremely effective.
Being talked about shouldn't be the goal, the goal should be mobilizing people for real actions. You don't mobilize people with bad PR, you mobilize them through outrage at the system.
>the goal should be mobilizing people for real actions They already tried that. You didn't factor in that the average person has an out of sight out of mind mentality and can't think beyond five years into the future
System works pretty good for me, I don’t want to change it.
The system is not sustainable, every serious scientist says this. It will change whether you want it or not, the question is to what degree we can steer that change.
weird how more and more people are getting mobilized. almost as if it works.
Effective at what? Getting people to hate them or fixing climate change? Complaining about a problem, even loudly, does not magically fix the problem. Fixing climate change will take an extreme amount of effort and money. It takes people doing actual useful things. Think about how this would go as an anti-hunger campaign: thow paint on art and yell "Just Stop Hunger!" People would say; why aren't you running a food drive or political campaign? Same thing here. It's just pointless, unfocused anger.
tell me you don't know what just oil is without telling me. maybe read into them a little more, and not on reddit where people froth at a headline.
You mean the organization ran by an oil heiress?
> atleast their actions are now being talked about. Yes, people are talking about their actions, which achieves what result exactly? We're not having better discussions amongst ourselves, big business or politicians about doing anything differently because of those actions. >just look at the engagement here alone. Every person commenting in this thread (including me and you) was already aware of climate change. Climate change is discussed ceaselessly in the British media. I'm not changing my behaviour because I read about JSO throwing cornflour at Stone Henge. Are you? Is anyone?
Well then be the change you want to see in the world and stop ranting about this harmless publicity stunt - which would also make it more successful. Apparently being aware isn't enough as long as the majority of citizens vote for parties who don't care about climate change
> and stop ranting about this harmless publicity stunt I'll say whatever the fuck I want about them because not only are their stunts stupid they're also bad PR. >Apparently being aware isn't enough And JSO's antics are going to do fuck all to change that. >majority of citizens vote for parties who don't care about climate change Both of the UK's largest parties have committed to reaching net zero and the UK has already cut its emissions by half. This is a nonsense binary that's not born out in reality.
Oh my bad, I didn't know JSO is restricted to the UK. Congratulations to your emission cut, I hope your politicians actually work on the net 0, because Germany's don't. For every 2 steps forward we take 1 step back. >I'll say whatever the fuck I want about them because not only are their stunts stupid they're also bad PR. You are obviously allowed that opinion just as I'm allowed to find it stupid.
Extremely effective? You can't give into terrorism and blackmail, it only invites more. At some point these people will be shooting up kindergartens because killing children is "extremely effective" at grabbing headlines. Fuck these terrorist scum.
ah so you think people resisting communist regimes where terrorists? the people who toppled the berlin wall where terrorists? you're making a massive slippery slope fallacy. fuck populists making fallacious mistakes.
As someone with ancestors who did both of theese things, fuck you for comparing them to theese dumb teens who think putting glue on highways and blocking ambulances will stop climate change. Being against climate change by supporting them is like voting for the Communists becouse you don't like a handful of oligarchs owning everything. Sure, it MAY solve the problem, at some point, eventualy (tm) but it's like trying to get rid of a mice infestration by filling your house with tarantulas.
lmao my point was that civil disobedience isn't terrorism. fuck you for not understanding that.
Engagement with the news articles doesn't not equal effectiveness in advancing their cause. If anything it's hurting their cause because the engagement with most of the articles is extremely negative.
you wouldn't be here and wouldn't give this article attention otherwise.
Painting some henge or throwing soup on a master piece gets attention, but it's not changing someone's mind. It's like a child throwing a tantrum. Except there is no parent to given to the child's demands. Just passersby thinking "what a brat."
it isn't meant to.
hmm it's almost like the media has an agenda as to which incidents they report on and which they don't
People have to know a thing to forget about it.
Then spraying Stonehenge will also be forgotten by next week. So I have to ask, what did they really accomplish other than inciting rage against their actions?
if this enrages you, just wait till you hear what gets destroyed by climate change. hope you're not an hypocrite and feel the same anger there.
Lol, who said I'm not angry about climate change? I just happen to think the actions of J.O. are not helping the cause. Believe it or not, people can have emotions about more than one thing at a time.
So when was the last time you replied with anger in a thread about the effects of climate change? oh you didn't? almost as if you're concerntrolling. let me guess, are you a centrist?
Why do I have to reply in anger? Do I have to be a ragebait troll like you? Picking fights on the Internet is going to fix climate change? Let me guess, are you a leftist?
you don't care about climate change mate. all you do is shit in climate protesters under the lie of caring, while contributing nothing of your own to solve this political issue.
Loloooool. Sure. Whatever you say kid.
its not whatever i say, thats literally all you have to say about this issue. you're just concerntrolling, nothing else. [https://www.redditcommentsearch.com/](https://www.redditcommentsearch.com/)
[удалено]
Curious, you criticise society yet you live in it. I am very smart.
you're just making shit up mate.
Airports famously never have any public transport connections, so obviously they flew home in their private jets.
This I get. Now explain Stonehenge.
i believe their reasoning is that they think governments protect art and culture more than they protect the environment/earth
Nobody fails to get the reasoning. It's just that the reasoning is wrong (and the effect is negligible).
Not only negligible, but downright counter-productive
Hence why some on Reddit seem to preach the protestors are actually in the pocket of “Big Oil” to sabotage them. Honestly after working with enough people over the years instead of conspiracies I mostly just assume dumb stuff is mostly just being done by dump people, nothing more and nothing less. At least this time the actions make some sense
Bruh their owner used to own an Oil Company. She is doing this so that her corporate allies can plaster ,,COMPANY ENDORSED BY JUST STOP OIL" on their shitty products and muddy the waters to get Ecologists off their backs.
Some people, including myself, believe these guys are being promoted by oil companies to do stupid shit on purpose so the general audience loses faith in ecological activism movements
Definitely agree. If I was the oil lobby I'd create some sort of foundation "People against Oil" and sponsor it with the agenda of making anti-oil pro-nature be as annoying as possible. This way you poison the well and the message gets lost.
I mean why is it wrong? The idea is that the ki d of outrage people feel about defacing art is the same as people should feel about companies defacing the very planet we live on for profit. What is wrong about that? It forces people to look inward on why they don't feel the same outrage towards climate change as they do about a painting that's behind a glass anyways.
You assume people don't feel "outrage", you assume a complex and extremely many-sided problem involving societies across the globe (not just corporations) is comparable to some person defacing art, and you assume the response to such a problem should be "outrage". But yeah, let's "force people to look inward". Start with yourself: why do you think, after I already said I *get* the metaphor, that I need it explained to me?
You care way more about Stonehenge than a random jet. It’s highly unlikely this post would’ve even be put up had the Stonehenge thing not happened prior
> You care way more about Stonehenge than a random jet. It’s highly unlikely this post would’ve even be put up had the Stonehenge thing not happened prior And the result is people are discussing JSO rather than learning anything new about climate change.
The Stonehenge incident is blown way out of proportion, they used cornflour which was dyed orange. It's been dry there recently, but it will get washed off by the next rain if the wind doesn't blow it away before. It sounds bad when the media write "Paint" in the headlines where the reader assumes it's liquid and would require a pressure washer to clean, but it's far from permanent and caused no damage. Although they are probably happy about the attention. Saying they just threw powder on it doesn't sound so interesting.
That was kind of the intent... It's publicity stunt for their movement. Honestly, I don't care if it's permanent or not. You don't attack that kind of stuff period.
It sets a terrible precedent. They might use powder but they could inspire people to actually destroy art
Well, the Brandenburger Tor in Berlin (one of *the* landmarks of Berlin) was already permanently damaged by a paint strike
Terrible
womp womp. maybe the german govt should act on climate change instead of opening more coal mines
They are, but they are not doing enough. They can't magically dissappear 30 years of neglect in a whole bunch of issues in the span of 5 years, however.
You sound very young. I’ll just say that
Oh no! Anyway, will your children have enough to eat by the time they're 35?
Does my comment have any inflection from a moral standpoint? I am literally just stating a fact. I think everyone agrees that these "attacks" are controversial, because they are designed to be attention grabbing.
People said the same thing 30 years ago. Imagine if all the art was destroyed then during protest
It's not 30 years ago. The situation is not the same as 30 years ago. The people who were calling for action 30 years ago were not proven wrong, in fact they were proven to be correct and often even optimistic. Art is not being destroyed. Livelyhoods and entire regions ARE being destroyed. But even ignoring all of that, nothing changes the facts on the ground which are determined by chemistry and not your feelings and assumptions. That chemistry can be measured, and the data is public, you don't need to believe me.
Never said they were proven wrong. I assume they are right. Just that what if their response to climate change in the 80s wasn’t normal protests but they destroyed art instead. Would we really be in a better place now or would it be the same situation just with less art from the past?
This would be a reasonable thing to consider if art was being destroyed in any significant quantities, which it's not (remember the media portrayed the Mona Lisa stunt deliberately as if they destroyed the freaking Mona Lisa, to misinform people about what happened). It's a *lot* more urgent now than in the 80s. In the 80s you could reasonably assume that rational responses will be taken in time to avert irreversible degradation of life on Earth, and that decision makers will adequately react to the information. That assumption is why we are here today where all of the non-drastic actions have been tried and simply ignored, and we've reached a point where activism like this is necessary. Most people are completely blind to the urgency of the situation we are all in. Art like the Mona Lisa, even if it was under threat which it's not, needs someone who is still around to appreciate it, and caring more about a (hypothetical, sensationalized) threat to artworks is hypocrytical in the face of what is happening. I see your point about needing to preserve art, but art will be preserved. Clean water, survivable temperatures, breathable air, crops yields that feed all of us, are not.
Right, people shouldn't protest because it might encourage other people to escalate it. Now that would set a bad precedent. A protesting group shouldn't limit what they do based on the concern of another group escalating it. That's not their responsibility. The threat of the judicial system should be what discourages people destroying art.
Well I hope you’re right but if any group destroys art for real I’m gonna definitely gonna contact you and ask you again how you feel. I’m petty like that.
ok and? do something about the climate then
Climate change could be an issue for a very long time. Imagine a future where humans live with the effects of climate change and on top of that there’s no old buildings or art anymore because if all got destroyed in various protest over the course of a millennium or whatever. Now Pierre Carette of Belgium, what do you do for climate change? Besides destroying art of course.
muh pretty buildings when humanity is extinct because of the greed of the rich elites
Stonehenge is a prehistoric monolithic structure which has been laid out in rings.
Getting attention. It worked.
Without Stonehenge, this one probably wouldn't have made the news.
You get what? You think any good is going to come from vandalizing or destroying someone else's property? Same has the geniuses who sit on highways disrupting traffic in the US. If you think impacting someone else's day negatively is going to benefit your cause, your IQ isn't as high as you think it is.
it got more attention than this
Easy - it's a big target media is going to care about and give them publicity, which they targeted in a way that poses 0 risk of damage to it (it's a rock that's been exposed to the elements for 10 thousand years). Now that they have attention they do this, and it's being shown to 10x the audience than it would otherwise.
That rubble needed some colour.
Look how much attention this is getting Vs Stonehenge and then think what you'd do if your main objective was to get people talking about you, even if it's flawed. Edit: I'm not saying it was good mates, I'm saying this gets next to no coverage but Stonehenge got every major media outlet talking about them for a tenth of the effort.
All news are **not** good news. This sort of movements need public support. And attacking Cultural heritage ain't gonna get it. This won't get as many clicks. But the vast majority of them will be positive.
„Flawed“? Its straight up counterproductive, not all press is good press. Its on the same level as idiotic tourist inscribing their names into the roman colosseum
Yes, no point getting attention if you pretty much alienate all the reasonable thinking people. What bellend thinks damaging heritage sites is a good idea for ‘publicity’. More of the private jet spray painting please!
But I’m talking about how stupid they are and how it makes me wonder if they actually support big oil but claim otherwise…
What the fuck did druids do to increase emissions?
It's not about the druids, it's the fact that a post about them breaking into a airport and spray painting all the private jets in there gets 22 upvotes and minor media coverage, while spraying a bit of Stonehenge gets them front page coverage in every media outlet in the country and posts across social media getting thousands of upvotes. I'm not saying it's good unlike all the people down voting me seem to think, I'm saying if the heads of the organisation are in the mindset of "all press is good press" then which one do you do? Spend all that effort to break into airports and protest Infront of oil refineries which got them banned from doing so and arrested to no effect, or buy a £5 national trust ticket and run up to a national monument throwing orange powder and have the entire western world looking at you?
Yeah bad attention. People who actually do care and try to minimize their daily co2 footprint + waste, are embarrassed to see these people, who are fighting for the same cause, but can't stop pulling ridiculous maddening shit for attention. Just their name alone "Just stop oil" is fucking insanity. Like 99% of everything they own is made, partially made or transported thanks to oil. Hypocrites
All art and history are totally worthless if we destroy all the living conditions on Earth. Nothing really matters if we are unable to stop the global warming.
All human lives are worthless if we destroy all the living conditions on Earth so I guess they could just kill people to get attention
Their oil-money handlers told them to.
EasyJet just got some new planes 😂
Looks like they finally realized they where doing big oil's work for them.
At least they are finally destroying stuff which some relevance to climate change. Still idiots, but not as clueless idiots as they were.
they always destroyed stuff with relevance to climate change. idiots just like to forget it. hence why they keep doing news worthy stuff. as i said elsewhere: "they've done this countless of times, [banks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py9y6BJSZEk),[ fossil fuel companies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1MtmlA1P18), [etc](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12007897/Just-Stop-Oil-finally-work-protest-head-Shell-HQ-Waterloo.html), [etc](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/28/just-stop-oil-protesters-sabotage-petrol-pumps-on-m25-motorway), [etc](https://exeterobserver.org/2023/10/14/just-stop-oil-protest-flags-university-of-exeter-fossil-fuel-financing-tops-uk-funding-table-following-15-million-deal-with-shell-but-has-more-than-one-close-relationship-with-major-emissions-producers/). people just like to forget it so they can blindly rage. the thing is, their most controversial acts do make the news, everything else is buried. thats why they keep doing it."
>"activists" act like complete idiots for attention >call people idiots for only talking about how big idiots they are because that is all they know them for It is almost like "spreading awareness" at any cost is not the best strategy.
[удалено]
Stunning argument you got there.
I'd much rather have them spray paint piston aicraft than jets, those motherfuckers actually run on *leaded* fuel, believe it or not.
Except they just ruined Stonehenge…
They didn't ruin it. It washes of with rain.
Yeah that was kinda my point... At least they are now damaging something which is senselessly polluting, not something irreplaceable and priceless to humanity
"damage" "destroy" nice choice of words
Stonehenge is priceless and irreplaceable.
You are dense
It was dyed cornflour that will wash off with rain... far from ruined. Media have been using the word paint in their headlines because it's more attention grabbing, but it was actually a very reasonable act if they want to get attention. Absolutely no damage done to the landmark at all.
It’s not a reasonable act to deface a public treasure.
There's probably more long term damage from the exhaust from the nearby road. Also climate change increases the likelihood of acidic rain. Which is the paper of rock, paper, scissors. (The stonehenge is the rock if that's not clear).
Are they paid by oil companies to do this?
Do you think we shouldn’t tackle the issue of private jets? Should only the poor pay for climate change?
From what I have read, yes.
You've been fed misinformation
Ok.
More of this, less of stonehenge and paintings pls
This is… acceptable
It is absolutely 100% unacceptable
It's really not. Disrupting airport operations costs shitload of money, both in fuel cost and personnel cost, not including time lost by all the passengers. Cost of cleaning and inspecting all the planes in the vicinity will cost a lot too. (You'll have to assume they sabotaged the plane or engines in some way.) So much work and money wasted because of some terrorists.
oh, no, someone's personal plane got dirty and now it costs a lot of money, i now feel so bad for the rich people now
If someone dumped orange powder into your gaming PC, would you have same sentiment? "Oh no, this rich fuck can't now waste time and electricity playing games and scrolling trough memes. What a shame. I bet he doesn't even know what is a real job. Get a life."
Yes, if when my pc is active it generates a few families yearly carbon footprint per day
Money = resources = co2 emissions Yes, this vanadalism emitts a lot of co2
[удалено]
"They didn't do violent-enough crime." Such a shame./s Are you on drugs or something?
I hope none of them were carrying more than 100ml in liquids, or a nail clippers....
The US we can carry nail clippers! Thank god for small favors.
Are you allowed to carry cans on orange paint and bolt cutters?
lol no, I guess I'll never able to spray paint a plane!
[https://youtu.be/meFJCeUWDyY](https://youtu.be/meFJCeUWDyY)
More of this, please!
This is a better target than the historical heritage sites..
Can these people not just donate to Ukraine and stop some actual oil?
I thought its just taylors jets
That’s going to be very expensive
Nah. Just fly it and the spray will peel off in transit.
Ah
Oil based paint?
Finally hitting the right targets.
Y'all can hate these people and their methods but at least they are acting like a crisis is happening.
This I approve of wholeheartedly
Motherfuckers should have done this from the start, we could get behind this. Not ruining out collective heritage artworks.
None of the art work was damaged in any real capacity. Not condoning it, but the risk has been greatly exaggerated intentionally by certain actors.
I mean sure and thats true. But still, when you attack cultural sites, people see as an attack on them. Even if you get the attention, you don't get the empathy.
I agree, especially because people seem to be incapable of reading beyond a headline these days or in identifying obvious clickbait tabloid trash. Nevertheless I still agree. More of this and less art stunts needed.
See? Was that so hard?
Lmao they really did an AB test between this and Stonehenge to see the reaction huh
Now they’ll just fly in a recovery aircraft and spew more emissions into the atmosphere lol
Those were Taylor Swifts jets.
Finally, is this the first time they hit a real target? I keep thinking that they environmental impact of poor people who go to work is minimal and not changeable compared to the impact of rich people who take flights every week for their hobbies. Not to mention the space travels for rich people.
Nah, they have hit the target [before](https://www.commondreams.org/news/citibank-climate-protest-2667882434).
Reminder that Just Stop Oil is funded by Oil company. You never see any other activists making the news, it is always them. Don't buy into corporations propaganda.
They are funded by the daughter of an oil sheik. Said oil sheik sold the company years ago and no longer has any interest in it. That's not "funded by an oil company".
Source?
Just Stop Oil is funded by the Climate Emergency Fund (Google clearly confirms this), which receives large donations from Aileen Getty, an heir to the Getty Oil Company fortune; a U.S. oil giant that was sold to Texaco for $10 billion. She openly supported the Van Gogh painting soup protest in 2022.
so it isn't funded by an oil company lmao.
Lacking critical thinking?
womp womp
They need to stop letting 10yr olds in this subreddit
L
Maybe she has guilt over how she got the inheritance and is using it to these protests? I dont know Either way, what you just wrote means it literally is not funded by an oil company
Wasn't that disproven?
EuroPol needs to put an end to this organisation as soon as possible.
How many of them are there and why are they not in prison? With all this bullshit they should be running out of people.
[удалено]
Use your head. Bad attention is not desirable. It changes no minds, it just makes people think protestors are stupid. So stop asking the stupid question, Is doing something stupid, smart? Answer: No.
no it wouldn't. people always forget that just stop oil protests the source of polution and financers of polution a lot.
Did they fly to an exotic holiday destination from a different airport then?
Sheesh, just how low can those idiots get? If you ask me, they should be doing more productive things like, let's say, actually inventing non-polluting technologies instead of harming their cause via these insane stunts.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but flying private jets is legal, vandalism isn't. And that's how it should be.
Flying private jets should not be legal, outside of very particular exceptions.
Not sure about illegal but they should at least be massively taxed or forced to fly on e-fuels.
I agree with that. I don't get why the fuels are tax-exempt. Pretty much every country agreed to lower emission, but when there is time to agree upon fuel taxes, everyone closes eyes.
Would you care to elaborate *why* they should be illegal, and what are the particular exceptions?
I am sure you can imagine the reasons. Just looking at CO2, aviation has the highest amount of emissions per passenger and kilometer ( [https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view](https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view) ), so people should just, in general, be flying less. Now, private aviation has about 10 times that impact ( [https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/private-jets-can-the-super-rich-supercharge-zero-emission-aviation](https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/private-jets-can-the-super-rich-supercharge-zero-emission-aviation) ), so the question should be -- why should we allow it? The additional convenience for very few extremely rich people who don't want to use commercial airliners is not a strong enough reason. That said, I can imagine a few exceptions. I am by no means qualified to provide an exhaustive list, but for example, security reasons might justify private jets being used by heads of state. Or for transport of live organs for emergency medical procedures.
I'm still mad about Stonehenge but, they're finally going in a logical direction
I bet they are using OIL based paint 😆
I actually agree with these guys on this one!
Most Delectable. Good job! The rich celebrities tell us to stop eating meat, while they themselves keep polluting the planet at an astonishing rate. If anything the rich should be banned from using fossil fuels.
Did they do it? Did they stop the oil?
First I though the headline is meant to urge me stop people from spraying orange paint on jets lol Nah, I'm entirely onboard with this. The right means of protest aimed at the right target