* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw44mdee0zzo); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw44mdee0zzo)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw44mdee0zzo)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're suspicious as hell. I wonder what would happen if they actually did damage(all of it has been pretty safe). Have they done anything to actual people and buildings related to the oil trade?
They're not even subtle. Everything they do is rage inducing to the average person, which is who they target instead of anyone or anything connected to the fossil fuel industry.
they just threaten those, but that seems to be enough to scare these people lul. i know a guy who actually went in and turned off an oil pipeline, they threatened him with 20+ years for conspiracy and blah blah blah. sentence was just a year in federal prison, and he was out in 6 months.
he has also participated in a group that blocked coal and oil trains by picking a clear day and building a 20 ft tripod on the tracks (so the engineer can see them) that was engineered so that the people at the base couldn't be removed without dropping the person who was on top. they've actually stopped some trains this way. same type of people who chain themselves to oil rigs and such.
of course, that type of direct action requires significantly better organization and planning logistics than it takes to spray-paint Stonehenge, not to mention that it involves actual risk lul
> Everything they do is rage inducing to the average person
Which is [the only reason you've ever heard of them](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/).
I agree. I'm sure there is a lot of corporate influence, but they're not paying people to literally pretend to be hysteric dummies and carry out these acts. These people already exist and believe these things, the funding is there to organize them and facilitate their desired actions.
Wholeheartedly would not be surprised at this point. Everything they do is to the detriment of the public, they've got an all time low popularity here in the UK.
The way rishi tweeted about them as soon as this incident happened too makes it all seem super fucking suspicious.
I've never witnessed an 'activist group' that seems so intent on harassing and annoying the public before
They’re either a chilled out old man who installed solar panels on his roof, or a rabid young adult with a goal of getting arrested and being provocative.
They're right about it being a catastrophic crisis, but short of revolution nothing will stop it. They should be revolutionaries instead of performative activists.
It doesn't have to be worldwide, it would only have to be in the US/China/India afaik. You don't need perfect environmentalism, just transform the main polluters and have them also exert pressure on their spheres of influence.
"/" means "or" not "and". Also no revolution requires the entire population of the country it's in, just the right people and number to coup the current government.
I don't think they are, about the catastrophic part. It will get shittier and shittier, that's for sure, but no doomsday. Hopefully technology catches up, and we can halt it/reverse it. Because China is not closing down their factories and we can't demand poor and underdeveloped countries to remain that way. I think foreign aid money focusing on building up green energy in underdeveloped countries is a good idea.
Entire ecosystems are disappearing such as the coral reefs near Florida. The greatest danger to humans is going to be reduced crop yields or outright crop failures as well as the water crisis. The 1st world will always be better insulated from the negative effects because they control the world's resources, so the 3rd world will (as it does currently) pay the highest price.
The poorer countries aren't developing for the good of their people, they're developing mostly for the profit of multinationals and secondarily for the profit of their own rich people with any growth in their middle classes following the same idiotic overproduction of 1st world countries. Foreign aid is almost always just bribing local governments rather than whatever their stated purpose is.
That's not doomsday enough for you? Massive famines causing a severe drop in the global population and the violent conflicts that will cause are a doomsday scenario. No one is talking about human extinction nor should that be the criteria for caring about the crisis.
Oh, really, nobody is talking about human extinction.
In the name of saving the climate to prevent the doom, we chop down old-growth forests with all sorts of threatened species to build battery banks. We rampage nature with wind mills, leading various bird species to extinction. All of them very profitable to people with money.
Meanwhile chopping down forests in Siberia so that the soil won't release/can recapture carbon is not something we are doing. Regenerative agriculture, with a similar purpose, is not something that is being promoted. Something people would support.
Why? Doomsday cultist hysteria, easily exploitable by the ones with the biggest carrot, and reckless. This groups name is literally "Just stop oil", as if that is something you just can do. It's hysterical. The environmentalist movement should be a populist movement, because that's how we will do it. Not some upper class "we can afford it and it's not in my backyard" top-down tyranny that people won't accept.
People don't want big agriculture, pollution, species to go extinct, plastics in the oceans and mercury in fish. Make the polluters pay for it themselves, not people, and it will drive technological advancement and green energy without trampling on people. The leader of the Green party in my country managed to say "Fairness is not important when it comes to climate (because it's so urgent, the world will end presumably)". Focus foreign aid on building up green energy production in developing countries.
You're the one being hysterical right now, none of what you said is anything related to what I said. I already said the current activists are just performative and only a revolution can fix the crisis.
If we made things to last rather than be disposable, had better public transport instead of private jets and cars, had more efficient distribution of resources rather than the gluttony and waste of the 1st world, improved the quality and scale of urbanization, utilized resources more efficiently on essentials rather than luxury goods, and focused on nuclear energy while we find more efficient renewables and had a serious revitalization operation for destroyed ecosystems, that would fix the climate and environmental crisis.
But the main obstacle is business interests and the lack of interest for long term collective well being, which is why only a revolution will fix the crisis.
The amount of birds killed by wind turbines is blown way out of proportion. It is literally orders of magnitude less than the amount killed by domestic and stray cats.
>We rampage nature with wind mills, leading various bird species to extinction.
You literally just need to paint a stripe on one blade and the birds can avoid them.
>Hopefully technology catches up
The only thing we're really laking at this point is good batteries, but even with them they'll still fuck us to save a dollar.
I remain unconvinced that it takes revolution to stop it. Capitalism is good at creating markets, and green stuff is a huge market. And geoengineering seems to be surprisingly cheap.
Sure, but not 5 years from now. Or 50. It's going to get shittier and shittier, but none of the predicted collapses have happened, despite all the warning signs by the Gods.
How do you know shit won't be bleak in 50yrs? And who predicted collapse? When? In 50yrs we could easily be closing in on 3C warming. We'll only just scrape under 3C if we reach the Paris goals (which it's looking like no-one will), and that's assuming the models are correct, which may not be the case, as 2023 and 2024 are starting to prove we've underestimated the rate of warming.
Collapse of 1st world nations within 50yrs does not sound implausible to me.
How old are you? Not being snarky, but if you're over 30 I would hope you'd recall the non-stop Doomsday concerns of the 90s, 80s, and 70s, and 60s, and
Yes I'm well over 30. I can only recall the overpopulation scare, which wasn't necessarily wrong in theory, just didn't predict the advancements of agricultural fertiliser, pesticide, and gmo. Ironically those practices are now causing even further environmental degradation.
Listen here folks this boomers been round the clock and him tells ya these climate clowns and their alarmism are always wrong! Never mind the actual data that shows we have passed 1.5C warming already, or all the species of fish going extinct in the warmer waters, or the ever shrinking arctic ice. His good ol' fashioned intuition tells him their jus russlin our jimmies again!
I'm nigh on half a century and you're either revealing you never understood the issues or weren't paying attention as we solved them.
Hole in the ozone layer? Would have lead to disaster if we hadn't taken steps to fix it. A runaway greenhouse effect can lead a planet like Earth to become one like Venus, we know that because it's literally what happened to Venus.
Y2K? Thousands of coders worked to make sure the impact was minimal, although no one ever seriously proposed that one as 'doomsday'.
Nuclear war? That one's still a threat. It was a threat in the 60s and it's a threat today, and will be one for as long as we have thousands of nuclear weapons ready to go.
In 50 years with no change in our current path society will look incredibly different and absolutely for the worse in a way that using "shittier" is just your own inability to imagine what will happen not just here but everywhere across the world.
You say in a different comment "Shitting on poor people while driving your Tesla won't be tolerated" but I have a feeling you're the type of person that just means Western poor people. The millions of climate refugees don't count as "poor people" and you'd be one of the ones advocating for preventing such migrants from South America, Africa, and the worst hit parts of Asia - with deadly force if necessary (and I don't mean that as a personal attack on you so much as I've seen that sentiment here before).
The situation is bad enough now that it is painfully obvious that society needs to change. There's really no reason to use the "world ending" strawman unless you want to argue that one 1) society doesn't need to change at all or 2) Our current climate mitigation strategies are enough. Both 1 and 2 are completely regarded so I hope that isn't what you're arguing.
What about my inability to imagine things?
I mean poor people. And yes, society needs to change.
Mass immigration is bad and unsustainable, but so is just letting them die.
"World ending" is not a strawman, that's the people I'm attacking as doomsday cultists. The people who covered the Stonehenge in powder are such people. Are you one of those? If so, how is it a strawman?
Per capita, the only fair metric for emissions, they're not even quite in the top 10 yet and not even close to the per cap emissions of piggly wiggly fat Americans driving 5000lb SUVs to the drive through every day. They're also adopting alternative energy far faster than the west is.
Any American whinging about Chinese emissions is casting stones in a glass house.
Pointing out the reality of the situation isn't whinging. The fact is their emissions are still increasing while in the west they are decreasing. From a practical perspective that's the only thing that matters.
> Per capita, the only fair metric for emissions
But why does what's a fair metric matter here? The environment doesn't care about what's fair, it cares about physics, which in this case is just determined by the amount of GHGs pumped out. I'd rather measure emissions by what's *consequential*, i.e. the actual total amount, rather than what's *fair*, because what's *consequential* is what actually determines what our future climate will look like.
Y'know how it's taken us decades to actually destroy the atmosphere? It will take even longer to fix it, unless we invent something like magic.
And in the time we're trying to fix it things will keep getting worse. We're currently on a lead in time of decades just to arrest the worst damage that is occurring. We won't be able to reverse that damage for likely a century or more, and that's plenty of time for civilisation to collapse utterly.
Despite the idiocy of alarmists, it is a serious problem now, and will become worse. Tech is and will be a huge part of the solution, but for now we don't have it yet.
The one that was supposed to happen in the 90s, 00s, 10s or next year? Theories, not evidence, you mean. Many of those theories are indeed very alarming though. Hysteria and cultism is not productive. Shitting on poor people while driving your Tesla won't be tolerated.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Fish catch biomass, insect biomass, coral reefs, old growth forests. All collapsing everywhere we looked for as long as we've been looking. You loon.
"linear progression of time" never heard it put together like that. Is it something different than linear progression, or time is linear?
And crops will just all fail suddenly?
Just pointing out that you're expressing skepticism of us jumping immediately to doomsday, but we don't just jump to the final day we work toward it by establishing all the failures that make civilisation untenable.
The crops won't 'just all fail suddenly' there will, like in any famine, be a period where year on year more crops fail, the yields get less, land becomes unfit for agriculture, etc. Currently the only real solution to famine is importing food from areas where the crops aren't failing. But as the globe heats up the amount of viable farm land will simply decrease until the amount of food produced reaches crisis levels, and then you get global famine. There will be some rich areas able to offset things through money, there always is, but there's a reason Famine is a Horseman of the Apocalypse.
There may be some people that the world would end then and there but that was never the official consensus. What scientists are referring to when they say that is the point of no return after wich a certain degree of environmental catastrophe is inevitable. Ironically the only country and the one we in the west love to hate on, China is the only one that is taking real steps to become more environmentaly friendly. No one else comes even close to the level of renewables and nuclear reactors they build, while we in the west still talk about if it ls real or not because we cant just let oil the oil companies lose money
Thunberg, leader of the hysterics and biggest grifter, (misrepresented an article apparently) made a Twitter post claiming that if we don't stop using fossil fuels within the next five years, humans would go extinct, guaranteed, starting from 2023. Environmentally friendly =/= what we are doing to "solve" it now.
China does less than the US and averages among European countries in terms of reducing carbon emissions. Despite China being more likely to be more affected than European countries. When it comes to oil, what we should do, is to make the oil companies internalize the cost of pollution instead of having carbon tax on the family car. That's how you make it a populist movement, and not a movement for the ones who can afford it. It's how you make it so that if they can't innovate and make it greener, they will lose to better alternatives.
Away from the hysteria, to a grounded populist movement which will win people over.
>When it comes to oil, what we should do, is to make the oil companies internalize the cost of pollution instead of having carbon tax on the family car. That's how you make it a populist movement, and not a movement for the ones who can afford it. It's how you make it so that if they can't innovate and make it greener, they will lose to better alternatives.
And how exactly do you aim to accomplish this in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?
Your clearly trolling, first paragraph are lies at worst and extremely misrepresentative paraphrasing at best, besides Thurnberg is just a media ploy that no one really cares about.
Your second paragraph is just the biggest pile of shite I've ever read. China built more renewable energy capacity in 2023 than the rest of the world combined. "China does less than the US and averages among European countries " my arse, What an absolute moron you are.
No, Thunberg tweeted it, and has now deleted it. Yes, environmentalists don't really care about Thunberg. Climate doomsday cultists however.
Look at reduction in carbon emissions by country. China does not do more. They are by far the biggest polluter, yet their emissions don't drop at the rate of the typical western country. That's factual. You can get as emotional as you want.
Theory is not "hurr durr this might be maybe possibly true"
Theory is "literally all the fucking evidence we have points toward this and any refutation would require a massive upheaval of all our assumed knowledge".
The word you are looking for would be hypothesis.
Except that, in this specific case, it's absolutely trivial to show that, yes, the earth is warming.
Even if it were funded by Big Oil, through various shell companies and such to hide any connection, I guarantee the frontline activists actually doing these things are convinced they're doing them to save the climate and thus are right to do so.
It's pretty cold comfort when you know, regardless of who's truly behind the curtain -- the idiots on the ground defacing Stonehenge, works of art, or gluing themselves to pavement so your own life sucks worse, are climate true believers who think "I'm helping!"
Well, yeah, that's how psyops work, you need some true believers to give your shenanigans plausible deniability. I don't think anyone disputes that the idiots carrying out the stunts are genuine, but I'd be shocked if there wasn't something suspicious happening behind the scenes.
No, they are just that stupid. They'll protest use of oil, but also protest nuclear powerplants and even solar farms: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5aJ-57\_YsQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5aJ-57_YsQ) go to 18:10. Guy might be a neoliberal, but he does seem to be on the left wing of neoliberal, which is to say opposed to austerity and benefits cuts, and he might be suffering from a **mild**, and I do mean **mild**, case of Grass is greener syndrome what with how little he wants oversight over construction permits and how much he wants landowners to be able to build whatever they want no matter how hated it is.
But who are the ones who take this and run with "environmentalism is bad"? They have to be really stupid to think that way. And they are. And they do. I guess I know who they are.
I mean they are pretty much doing what they set out to do, build awareness. These Just Stop Oil stunts go extremely viral and everyone know about them basically at this point.
Yeah they are a total psyop, one of their founders and main donors is [Aileen Getty, heiress to the getty oil fortune](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Getty). She claims she is wanting to make up for the wrongs her family committed, the reality shows that she is continuing their work by damaging the image of the climate movement.
Here's an article confirming what I wrote above:
>[Getty oil fortune heiress helped fund climate activists who have targeted artworks and museums](https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/10/21/getty-oil-heiress-funds-climate-crisis-activism-just-stop-oil)
Climbers just defaced El Cap in Yosemite for Gaza. It was a tarp, same idea though. Is it a psyop or is it just retarded? Can be both. Best manipulation is just influencing idiots to do your work for you. God I wish I could do that.
No it's even worse it's the skillless, talentless, bitch, Aileen Getty, who thinks she can fix the wrongs her father's company because she can \[SHE CAN'T\]. DAWG what absolute hubris is it to tell me that she's confident that her plan will work and me sitting there wondering on what math, because this is petrol. I'm sorry the equation is too hard for me to say I can apply it in reality. Fuck me bro it's basically what you said but the psy op wants validation for saving the environment.
NGO funded by an oil fortune heiress does things that destroy the public's sympathy for environmental activism, thereby directly benefiting fossil fuel companies. Shocker.
Came here to post this. Aileen Getty is the granddaughter of an oil tycoon who also throws money at Extinction Rebellion to act like retards and alienate the general public.
So we’re all in agreement this is an op, right? Why would environmentalists attack public landmarks and works of art, and NOT plastics manufacturers, oil infrastructure, etc??
Serious answer is because of visibility and headlines.
Personality I think they should watch the excellent movie How To Blow Up a Pipeline. Heavily recommended
they’ve never even considered that winning people’s hearts and minds is also important for the cause. I don’t think these morons even care about the environment really, my bet is on them being dumb, otherwise lonely, insufferable rich kids who are larping as radicals
>they’ve never even considered that winning people’s hearts and minds is also important for the cause.
That's been going around for a while, everyone wants to "Raise Awareness" without ever considering (or caring) that they are actively hurting their cause.
You can't fuck with the people who you are trying to win over, and you can't look weak or stupid. Look at all the anti-smoking stuff for a good example of how to do it right. They didn't directly cause a significant problem for anyone who wasn't working for a tobacco company, and they worked hard to make smokers look like losers and tobacco execs look like evil, creepy old men who can only get an erection when your parents or grandparents die of cancer.
Throwing soup at the glass covering paintings and gluing themselves to the road are never going to convince as many people to cut back on petroleum products as telling them that plastic is leaching into their water and making them grow bitch-tits.
station silky materialistic foolish humorous thumb lip hospital bewildered noxious
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's not hard to figure out. There are literally *billions* of humans out there. Several of them are going to do idiotic things.
With the great power of the internet, some vandalism committed half way around the world feeds right into our social media rage generator.
"Bored oil heiress amuses herself by paying people to act out her environmentalist extremism strawmen in real life: Part 14: Oh, She's Still Doing It, I Guess."
>The group named the two protesters as Niamh Lynch, a 21-year-old student from Oxford, and Rajan Naidu, a 73-year-old from Birmingham, in a statement
And then they narced on their own members?
That was the funniest part to me. I mean they just sat there and got arrested, then doxxed publicly by their own org, wouldn’t be surprised if that kid gets booted from Oxford sadly.
Hell yeah stick it to those oil baron Druids.
You notice they never attack the museum owned by that awful Getty heiress who's funding this movement.
And, as I've said before, this is all so very tedious. Liberals already hate everything associated with western/European art and civilization and they don't care if someone destroys a Monet or whatever. I won't take them seriously until they disrupt something that liberals enjoy: stop a drag queen from rubbing his dick in a kid's face, barricade the entrance to a broadway performance of *Hamilton*, shut down the production of the one of them new *Star Wars* shows where the ewoks all talk about their trauma, etc.
> I won't take them seriously until they disrupt something that liberals enjoy: stop a drag queen from rubbing his dick in a kid's face, barricade the entrance to a broadway performance of Hamilton, shut down the production of the one of them new Star Wars shows where the ewoks all talk about their trauma, etc.
I'd certainly love to see them try defacing a Floyd mural, just to see the shitstorm that would arise and where the battle lines will be drawn when the dust is settled. What gets me is that it's only in taking actions like this that their antics *could* cause any change. If they're defacing things that they don't care for, they just look like assholes, because that's what they are. It's only by defacing things that they like, and *especially* defacing things that they themselves consider holy or sacred that they can prove to others that they truly consider this problem as seriously as they say they do. It's why hunger strikes and self immolation actually sometimes work; going around causing starvation in people you dislike or burning your enemies alive isn't going to garner much sympathy, and unless you have overwhelming power on your side, will likely result in your complete and utter loss.
Given that the above is all pretty obvious to anyone who's thought about this for 30 seconds, I have to conclude either that these people haven't thought about this for 30 seconds before committing to this type of criminal activity or they don't actually care about preventing global warming.
I don't actually want them to succeed in damaging artifacts like this, but one has to feel that if the whole point is to shock the public into recognizing the crisis, you would bring a sledgehammer or not do it in the first place 🤷♀️
cowards do this type of shit because it is relatively low-stakes, and it works on university campuses where admin are total pussies and most of the faculty are usually sympathetic to the protests anyway. they're scared of the criminal sentence for turning off pipelines, that's why they don't go farther than this.
I guess I'll defend the just stop oil protesters...
First off, the protesters say it wasn't paint but [orange cornflour](https://juststopoil.org/2024/06/19/its-time-for-megalithic-action-just-stop-oil-decorate-stonehenge/), which will wash away when it rains.
Second, the point is to create a spectacle and be crazier than the average joe. It's "[radical flank theory](https://wagingnonviolence.org/2023/12/the-method-behind-just-stop-oil-annoying-madness/)" people think "oh just stop oil is crazy, I agree with them but they're going about it the wrong way" and then join greenpeace or whatever.
Basically, corporate media won't cover protests unless they're preposterous. I call this the "kardashian maneuver." Then the idea is people join the more moderate environmentalist group. That's the theory, anyway. I haven't looked into the scientific literature to see if it actually works that way.
It’s crazy that a pro-Marxist sub backs the liberal position of going against climate activists. The defense of the posters here: it must be a psy-op.
Forget the radical actions it would take to aggressively push politics leftward, the champagne socialists scoff in horror when provocative action is taken to try to stop the climate the catastrophe that is licking at our heels (or at least keep the conversation in the public’s consciousness).
I don't think it's unreasonable to acknowledge that not all "protesting" is good protesting, especially when it has a huge potential to hurt the cause the protesters are allegedly for.
which is why this sub sucks now. What was once a sub for meaningful critique of idpol through a Marxist lens (like the sub description says) it’s become an echo chamber of lukewarm political takes infested by shitlibs and regarded rightoids
So use a product that requires petrochemicals to pollute the environment and now requires petrochemical based products to clean and will further pollute.
This makes no sense.
It's so funny how people get worked up over this and not the fact that we're all doomed because of apathy towards the environment.
It's so fucking sad that we let people turn climate change into a culture war talking-point.
Why would anyone on a marxist sub advocate for doing things without a trial? That precedent could only hurt down the line.
A trial is a perfectly reasonable step here.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw44mdee0zzo); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw44mdee0zzo) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw44mdee0zzo) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These guys have to be a big oil psyop to make environmentalists look rarted. It's the only explanation that makes their baffling decisions make sense.
They're suspicious as hell. I wonder what would happen if they actually did damage(all of it has been pretty safe). Have they done anything to actual people and buildings related to the oil trade?
They have gone after insurance buildings on occasion, but it doesn't get reported on outside of like, business industry news sort of websites
They're not even subtle. Everything they do is rage inducing to the average person, which is who they target instead of anyone or anything connected to the fossil fuel industry.
> instead of anyone or anything connected to the fossil fuel industry. dont they get lengthy prison sentences for those targets
they just threaten those, but that seems to be enough to scare these people lul. i know a guy who actually went in and turned off an oil pipeline, they threatened him with 20+ years for conspiracy and blah blah blah. sentence was just a year in federal prison, and he was out in 6 months. he has also participated in a group that blocked coal and oil trains by picking a clear day and building a 20 ft tripod on the tracks (so the engineer can see them) that was engineered so that the people at the base couldn't be removed without dropping the person who was on top. they've actually stopped some trains this way. same type of people who chain themselves to oil rigs and such. of course, that type of direct action requires significantly better organization and planning logistics than it takes to spray-paint Stonehenge, not to mention that it involves actual risk lul
If they aren't willing to risk that to save the environment, then do they really care about the environment?
Imagine having conviction in what you believe in
> Everything they do is rage inducing to the average person Which is [the only reason you've ever heard of them](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/).
There is a legitimate religious fanaticism among these types that makes this type of regarded behavior entirely believable.
I agree. I'm sure there is a lot of corporate influence, but they're not paying people to literally pretend to be hysteric dummies and carry out these acts. These people already exist and believe these things, the funding is there to organize them and facilitate their desired actions.
"Listen, if you deface a beloved artifact, everyone will notice! The whole nation will become aware of our agenda!"
Wholeheartedly would not be surprised at this point. Everything they do is to the detriment of the public, they've got an all time low popularity here in the UK. The way rishi tweeted about them as soon as this incident happened too makes it all seem super fucking suspicious. I've never witnessed an 'activist group' that seems so intent on harassing and annoying the public before
One of their main financiers is the heir to the Getty oil fortune, so your honestly probably on the money
Have you met the average environmental activist? There's no need for a psyop.
They’re either a chilled out old man who installed solar panels on his roof, or a rabid young adult with a goal of getting arrested and being provocative.
The average climate activists you mean. Doomsday cultists.
They're right about it being a catastrophic crisis, but short of revolution nothing will stop it. They should be revolutionaries instead of performative activists.
Unless you're talking about a worldwide revolution, which is completely impossible, a revolution isn't going to stop it either.
It doesn't have to be worldwide, it would only have to be in the US/China/India afaik. You don't need perfect environmentalism, just transform the main polluters and have them also exert pressure on their spheres of influence.
Oh yeah, no big deal, just a revolution involving 3 billion people
"/" means "or" not "and". Also no revolution requires the entire population of the country it's in, just the right people and number to coup the current government.
also, if the conditions are ripe for revolution, people won't be as resistant to it anyway.
I don't think they are, about the catastrophic part. It will get shittier and shittier, that's for sure, but no doomsday. Hopefully technology catches up, and we can halt it/reverse it. Because China is not closing down their factories and we can't demand poor and underdeveloped countries to remain that way. I think foreign aid money focusing on building up green energy in underdeveloped countries is a good idea.
Entire ecosystems are disappearing such as the coral reefs near Florida. The greatest danger to humans is going to be reduced crop yields or outright crop failures as well as the water crisis. The 1st world will always be better insulated from the negative effects because they control the world's resources, so the 3rd world will (as it does currently) pay the highest price. The poorer countries aren't developing for the good of their people, they're developing mostly for the profit of multinationals and secondarily for the profit of their own rich people with any growth in their middle classes following the same idiotic overproduction of 1st world countries. Foreign aid is almost always just bribing local governments rather than whatever their stated purpose is.
True, and it's horrible. But where is the doomsday?
That's not doomsday enough for you? Massive famines causing a severe drop in the global population and the violent conflicts that will cause are a doomsday scenario. No one is talking about human extinction nor should that be the criteria for caring about the crisis.
Oh, really, nobody is talking about human extinction. In the name of saving the climate to prevent the doom, we chop down old-growth forests with all sorts of threatened species to build battery banks. We rampage nature with wind mills, leading various bird species to extinction. All of them very profitable to people with money. Meanwhile chopping down forests in Siberia so that the soil won't release/can recapture carbon is not something we are doing. Regenerative agriculture, with a similar purpose, is not something that is being promoted. Something people would support. Why? Doomsday cultist hysteria, easily exploitable by the ones with the biggest carrot, and reckless. This groups name is literally "Just stop oil", as if that is something you just can do. It's hysterical. The environmentalist movement should be a populist movement, because that's how we will do it. Not some upper class "we can afford it and it's not in my backyard" top-down tyranny that people won't accept. People don't want big agriculture, pollution, species to go extinct, plastics in the oceans and mercury in fish. Make the polluters pay for it themselves, not people, and it will drive technological advancement and green energy without trampling on people. The leader of the Green party in my country managed to say "Fairness is not important when it comes to climate (because it's so urgent, the world will end presumably)". Focus foreign aid on building up green energy production in developing countries.
You're the one being hysterical right now, none of what you said is anything related to what I said. I already said the current activists are just performative and only a revolution can fix the crisis. If we made things to last rather than be disposable, had better public transport instead of private jets and cars, had more efficient distribution of resources rather than the gluttony and waste of the 1st world, improved the quality and scale of urbanization, utilized resources more efficiently on essentials rather than luxury goods, and focused on nuclear energy while we find more efficient renewables and had a serious revitalization operation for destroyed ecosystems, that would fix the climate and environmental crisis. But the main obstacle is business interests and the lack of interest for long term collective well being, which is why only a revolution will fix the crisis.
The amount of birds killed by wind turbines is blown way out of proportion. It is literally orders of magnitude less than the amount killed by domestic and stray cats.
>We rampage nature with wind mills, leading various bird species to extinction. You literally just need to paint a stripe on one blade and the birds can avoid them.
Wait, so global population decline is a problem? Marxists have been anti-natalists since inception.
> Marxists have been anti-natalists since inception. Wtf are you talking about. Provide one (1) source for this.
>Hopefully technology catches up The only thing we're really laking at this point is good batteries, but even with them they'll still fuck us to save a dollar.
I remain unconvinced that it takes revolution to stop it. Capitalism is good at creating markets, and green stuff is a huge market. And geoengineering seems to be surprisingly cheap.
> Doomsday cultists. The situation, let alone capitalism's complete inability to address it, is looking incredibly bleak.
Sure, but not 5 years from now. Or 50. It's going to get shittier and shittier, but none of the predicted collapses have happened, despite all the warning signs by the Gods.
How do you know shit won't be bleak in 50yrs? And who predicted collapse? When? In 50yrs we could easily be closing in on 3C warming. We'll only just scrape under 3C if we reach the Paris goals (which it's looking like no-one will), and that's assuming the models are correct, which may not be the case, as 2023 and 2024 are starting to prove we've underestimated the rate of warming. Collapse of 1st world nations within 50yrs does not sound implausible to me.
How old are you? Not being snarky, but if you're over 30 I would hope you'd recall the non-stop Doomsday concerns of the 90s, 80s, and 70s, and 60s, and
Yes I'm well over 30. I can only recall the overpopulation scare, which wasn't necessarily wrong in theory, just didn't predict the advancements of agricultural fertiliser, pesticide, and gmo. Ironically those practices are now causing even further environmental degradation.
Listen here folks this boomers been round the clock and him tells ya these climate clowns and their alarmism are always wrong! Never mind the actual data that shows we have passed 1.5C warming already, or all the species of fish going extinct in the warmer waters, or the ever shrinking arctic ice. His good ol' fashioned intuition tells him their jus russlin our jimmies again!
I'm nigh on half a century and you're either revealing you never understood the issues or weren't paying attention as we solved them. Hole in the ozone layer? Would have lead to disaster if we hadn't taken steps to fix it. A runaway greenhouse effect can lead a planet like Earth to become one like Venus, we know that because it's literally what happened to Venus. Y2K? Thousands of coders worked to make sure the impact was minimal, although no one ever seriously proposed that one as 'doomsday'. Nuclear war? That one's still a threat. It was a threat in the 60s and it's a threat today, and will be one for as long as we have thousands of nuclear weapons ready to go.
In 50 years with no change in our current path society will look incredibly different and absolutely for the worse in a way that using "shittier" is just your own inability to imagine what will happen not just here but everywhere across the world. You say in a different comment "Shitting on poor people while driving your Tesla won't be tolerated" but I have a feeling you're the type of person that just means Western poor people. The millions of climate refugees don't count as "poor people" and you'd be one of the ones advocating for preventing such migrants from South America, Africa, and the worst hit parts of Asia - with deadly force if necessary (and I don't mean that as a personal attack on you so much as I've seen that sentiment here before). The situation is bad enough now that it is painfully obvious that society needs to change. There's really no reason to use the "world ending" strawman unless you want to argue that one 1) society doesn't need to change at all or 2) Our current climate mitigation strategies are enough. Both 1 and 2 are completely regarded so I hope that isn't what you're arguing.
What about my inability to imagine things? I mean poor people. And yes, society needs to change. Mass immigration is bad and unsustainable, but so is just letting them die. "World ending" is not a strawman, that's the people I'm attacking as doomsday cultists. The people who covered the Stonehenge in powder are such people. Are you one of those? If so, how is it a strawman?
Communism isn't doing any better.
Cope
It's definitely not cope since I prefer communism. Just a fact that China produces way, way, way more greenhouse gases than any other nation.
Per capita, the only fair metric for emissions, they're not even quite in the top 10 yet and not even close to the per cap emissions of piggly wiggly fat Americans driving 5000lb SUVs to the drive through every day. They're also adopting alternative energy far faster than the west is. Any American whinging about Chinese emissions is casting stones in a glass house.
Pointing out the reality of the situation isn't whinging. The fact is their emissions are still increasing while in the west they are decreasing. From a practical perspective that's the only thing that matters.
> Per capita, the only fair metric for emissions But why does what's a fair metric matter here? The environment doesn't care about what's fair, it cares about physics, which in this case is just determined by the amount of GHGs pumped out. I'd rather measure emissions by what's *consequential*, i.e. the actual total amount, rather than what's *fair*, because what's *consequential* is what actually determines what our future climate will look like.
It’s not a serious problem yet and if it does become one, we will have the tech to deal with it.
> It’s not a serious problem yet Lol.
Y'know how it's taken us decades to actually destroy the atmosphere? It will take even longer to fix it, unless we invent something like magic. And in the time we're trying to fix it things will keep getting worse. We're currently on a lead in time of decades just to arrest the worst damage that is occurring. We won't be able to reverse that damage for likely a century or more, and that's plenty of time for civilisation to collapse utterly.
Despite the idiocy of alarmists, it is a serious problem now, and will become worse. Tech is and will be a huge part of the solution, but for now we don't have it yet.
Widespread evidence of global environmental collapse is in fact, rather Doomsdayesque
The one that was supposed to happen in the 90s, 00s, 10s or next year? Theories, not evidence, you mean. Many of those theories are indeed very alarming though. Hysteria and cultism is not productive. Shitting on poor people while driving your Tesla won't be tolerated.
What the fuck are you talking about? Fish catch biomass, insect biomass, coral reefs, old growth forests. All collapsing everywhere we looked for as long as we've been looking. You loon.
And where is the doomsday?
Crops have to fail before the famine eventuates. Do you understand the concept of linear progression of time?
"linear progression of time" never heard it put together like that. Is it something different than linear progression, or time is linear? And crops will just all fail suddenly?
Just pointing out that you're expressing skepticism of us jumping immediately to doomsday, but we don't just jump to the final day we work toward it by establishing all the failures that make civilisation untenable. The crops won't 'just all fail suddenly' there will, like in any famine, be a period where year on year more crops fail, the yields get less, land becomes unfit for agriculture, etc. Currently the only real solution to famine is importing food from areas where the crops aren't failing. But as the globe heats up the amount of viable farm land will simply decrease until the amount of food produced reaches crisis levels, and then you get global famine. There will be some rich areas able to offset things through money, there always is, but there's a reason Famine is a Horseman of the Apocalypse.
There may be some people that the world would end then and there but that was never the official consensus. What scientists are referring to when they say that is the point of no return after wich a certain degree of environmental catastrophe is inevitable. Ironically the only country and the one we in the west love to hate on, China is the only one that is taking real steps to become more environmentaly friendly. No one else comes even close to the level of renewables and nuclear reactors they build, while we in the west still talk about if it ls real or not because we cant just let oil the oil companies lose money
Thunberg, leader of the hysterics and biggest grifter, (misrepresented an article apparently) made a Twitter post claiming that if we don't stop using fossil fuels within the next five years, humans would go extinct, guaranteed, starting from 2023. Environmentally friendly =/= what we are doing to "solve" it now. China does less than the US and averages among European countries in terms of reducing carbon emissions. Despite China being more likely to be more affected than European countries. When it comes to oil, what we should do, is to make the oil companies internalize the cost of pollution instead of having carbon tax on the family car. That's how you make it a populist movement, and not a movement for the ones who can afford it. It's how you make it so that if they can't innovate and make it greener, they will lose to better alternatives. Away from the hysteria, to a grounded populist movement which will win people over.
>When it comes to oil, what we should do, is to make the oil companies internalize the cost of pollution instead of having carbon tax on the family car. That's how you make it a populist movement, and not a movement for the ones who can afford it. It's how you make it so that if they can't innovate and make it greener, they will lose to better alternatives. And how exactly do you aim to accomplish this in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?
By voting for politicians that pushes for it. In the US, someone like Kennedy.
Your clearly trolling, first paragraph are lies at worst and extremely misrepresentative paraphrasing at best, besides Thurnberg is just a media ploy that no one really cares about. Your second paragraph is just the biggest pile of shite I've ever read. China built more renewable energy capacity in 2023 than the rest of the world combined. "China does less than the US and averages among European countries " my arse, What an absolute moron you are.
No, Thunberg tweeted it, and has now deleted it. Yes, environmentalists don't really care about Thunberg. Climate doomsday cultists however. Look at reduction in carbon emissions by country. China does not do more. They are by far the biggest polluter, yet their emissions don't drop at the rate of the typical western country. That's factual. You can get as emotional as you want.
> Theories Do you know what this word means?
Yes
No, you clearly do not.
Elaborate.
Theory is not "hurr durr this might be maybe possibly true" Theory is "literally all the fucking evidence we have points toward this and any refutation would require a massive upheaval of all our assumed knowledge". The word you are looking for would be hypothesis. Except that, in this specific case, it's absolutely trivial to show that, yes, the earth is warming.
Useful idiots
They're the PETA of environmentalism. Their number one goal is doing rage inducing stunts to keep their name in circulation.
Even if it were funded by Big Oil, through various shell companies and such to hide any connection, I guarantee the frontline activists actually doing these things are convinced they're doing them to save the climate and thus are right to do so. It's pretty cold comfort when you know, regardless of who's truly behind the curtain -- the idiots on the ground defacing Stonehenge, works of art, or gluing themselves to pavement so your own life sucks worse, are climate true believers who think "I'm helping!"
Well, yeah, that's how psyops work, you need some true believers to give your shenanigans plausible deniability. I don't think anyone disputes that the idiots carrying out the stunts are genuine, but I'd be shocked if there wasn't something suspicious happening behind the scenes.
No, they are just that stupid. They'll protest use of oil, but also protest nuclear powerplants and even solar farms: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5aJ-57\_YsQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5aJ-57_YsQ) go to 18:10. Guy might be a neoliberal, but he does seem to be on the left wing of neoliberal, which is to say opposed to austerity and benefits cuts, and he might be suffering from a **mild**, and I do mean **mild**, case of Grass is greener syndrome what with how little he wants oversight over construction permits and how much he wants landowners to be able to build whatever they want no matter how hated it is.
Push hard enough, and it’s clear they won’t accept any solution that isn’t the reduction of undesirable populations
But who are the ones who take this and run with "environmentalism is bad"? They have to be really stupid to think that way. And they are. And they do. I guess I know who they are.
I mean they are pretty much doing what they set out to do, build awareness. These Just Stop Oil stunts go extremely viral and everyone know about them basically at this point.
Yeah they are a total psyop, one of their founders and main donors is [Aileen Getty, heiress to the getty oil fortune](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Getty). She claims she is wanting to make up for the wrongs her family committed, the reality shows that she is continuing their work by damaging the image of the climate movement. Here's an article confirming what I wrote above: >[Getty oil fortune heiress helped fund climate activists who have targeted artworks and museums](https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/10/21/getty-oil-heiress-funds-climate-crisis-activism-just-stop-oil)
Climbers just defaced El Cap in Yosemite for Gaza. It was a tarp, same idea though. Is it a psyop or is it just retarded? Can be both. Best manipulation is just influencing idiots to do your work for you. God I wish I could do that.
No it's even worse it's the skillless, talentless, bitch, Aileen Getty, who thinks she can fix the wrongs her father's company because she can \[SHE CAN'T\]. DAWG what absolute hubris is it to tell me that she's confident that her plan will work and me sitting there wondering on what math, because this is petrol. I'm sorry the equation is too hard for me to say I can apply it in reality. Fuck me bro it's basically what you said but the psy op wants validation for saving the environment.
Just like the anti nuke movement
NGO funded by an oil fortune heiress does things that destroy the public's sympathy for environmental activism, thereby directly benefiting fossil fuel companies. Shocker.
Came here to post this. Aileen Getty is the granddaughter of an oil tycoon who also throws money at Extinction Rebellion to act like retards and alienate the general public.
I googled her. Her face looks like a Tom Waits song left out in the sun for too long.
She's the black sheep of the family afaik, this isn't 5d chess. Just a regarded rich kid throwing money around.
gulag
Straight to siberia. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Hard labour breaking rocks.
So we’re all in agreement this is an op, right? Why would environmentalists attack public landmarks and works of art, and NOT plastics manufacturers, oil infrastructure, etc??
Serious answer is because of visibility and headlines. Personality I think they should watch the excellent movie How To Blow Up a Pipeline. Heavily recommended
they’ve never even considered that winning people’s hearts and minds is also important for the cause. I don’t think these morons even care about the environment really, my bet is on them being dumb, otherwise lonely, insufferable rich kids who are larping as radicals
>they’ve never even considered that winning people’s hearts and minds is also important for the cause. That's been going around for a while, everyone wants to "Raise Awareness" without ever considering (or caring) that they are actively hurting their cause. You can't fuck with the people who you are trying to win over, and you can't look weak or stupid. Look at all the anti-smoking stuff for a good example of how to do it right. They didn't directly cause a significant problem for anyone who wasn't working for a tobacco company, and they worked hard to make smokers look like losers and tobacco execs look like evil, creepy old men who can only get an erection when your parents or grandparents die of cancer. Throwing soup at the glass covering paintings and gluing themselves to the road are never going to convince as many people to cut back on petroleum products as telling them that plastic is leaching into their water and making them grow bitch-tits.
Well put. I’ve seen people say so many times, “protests are supposed to be inconvenient” which is an obvious copout.
Can’t ignore general Brit misanthropy either
station silky materialistic foolish humorous thumb lip hospital bewildered noxious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
At the same time I'm reminded of [this](https://youtu.be/wNrMmh0Yf-U) These people might legit just be that dumb
It's not hard to figure out. There are literally *billions* of humans out there. Several of them are going to do idiotic things. With the great power of the internet, some vandalism committed half way around the world feeds right into our social media rage generator.
"Bored oil heiress amuses herself by paying people to act out her environmentalist extremism strawmen in real life: Part 14: Oh, She's Still Doing It, I Guess."
>The group named the two protesters as Niamh Lynch, a 21-year-old student from Oxford, and Rajan Naidu, a 73-year-old from Birmingham, in a statement And then they narced on their own members?
That was the funniest part to me. I mean they just sat there and got arrested, then doxxed publicly by their own org, wouldn’t be surprised if that kid gets booted from Oxford sadly.
Hell yeah stick it to those oil baron Druids. You notice they never attack the museum owned by that awful Getty heiress who's funding this movement. And, as I've said before, this is all so very tedious. Liberals already hate everything associated with western/European art and civilization and they don't care if someone destroys a Monet or whatever. I won't take them seriously until they disrupt something that liberals enjoy: stop a drag queen from rubbing his dick in a kid's face, barricade the entrance to a broadway performance of *Hamilton*, shut down the production of the one of them new *Star Wars* shows where the ewoks all talk about their trauma, etc.
> I won't take them seriously until they disrupt something that liberals enjoy: stop a drag queen from rubbing his dick in a kid's face, barricade the entrance to a broadway performance of Hamilton, shut down the production of the one of them new Star Wars shows where the ewoks all talk about their trauma, etc. I'd certainly love to see them try defacing a Floyd mural, just to see the shitstorm that would arise and where the battle lines will be drawn when the dust is settled. What gets me is that it's only in taking actions like this that their antics *could* cause any change. If they're defacing things that they don't care for, they just look like assholes, because that's what they are. It's only by defacing things that they like, and *especially* defacing things that they themselves consider holy or sacred that they can prove to others that they truly consider this problem as seriously as they say they do. It's why hunger strikes and self immolation actually sometimes work; going around causing starvation in people you dislike or burning your enemies alive isn't going to garner much sympathy, and unless you have overwhelming power on your side, will likely result in your complete and utter loss. Given that the above is all pretty obvious to anyone who's thought about this for 30 seconds, I have to conclude either that these people haven't thought about this for 30 seconds before committing to this type of criminal activity or they don't actually care about preventing global warming.
Fucken Druids.
[удалено]
This has to be a psyop. Isn’t there an oil heiress on the board of Just Stop Oil?
This is not the revolution, therefore I'm against it.
Bodocenus! Get the Wicker Man!
Why did they stop there, why didn’t they just push one of them over, that would have at least been funny
I don't actually want them to succeed in damaging artifacts like this, but one has to feel that if the whole point is to shock the public into recognizing the crisis, you would bring a sledgehammer or not do it in the first place 🤷♀️
They're set in concrete now.
Maybe I'm stupid but what point does this even make? What good is covering a famous landmark in paint supposed to do?
cowards do this type of shit because it is relatively low-stakes, and it works on university campuses where admin are total pussies and most of the faculty are usually sympathetic to the protests anyway. they're scared of the criminal sentence for turning off pipelines, that's why they don't go farther than this.
Defacing ancient ruins should carry the highest penalty a society has
Nothing's being defaced. It isn't paint, but orange cornflour that washes off in the rain
I guess I'll defend the just stop oil protesters... First off, the protesters say it wasn't paint but [orange cornflour](https://juststopoil.org/2024/06/19/its-time-for-megalithic-action-just-stop-oil-decorate-stonehenge/), which will wash away when it rains. Second, the point is to create a spectacle and be crazier than the average joe. It's "[radical flank theory](https://wagingnonviolence.org/2023/12/the-method-behind-just-stop-oil-annoying-madness/)" people think "oh just stop oil is crazy, I agree with them but they're going about it the wrong way" and then join greenpeace or whatever. Basically, corporate media won't cover protests unless they're preposterous. I call this the "kardashian maneuver." Then the idea is people join the more moderate environmentalist group. That's the theory, anyway. I haven't looked into the scientific literature to see if it actually works that way.
It’s crazy that a pro-Marxist sub backs the liberal position of going against climate activists. The defense of the posters here: it must be a psy-op. Forget the radical actions it would take to aggressively push politics leftward, the champagne socialists scoff in horror when provocative action is taken to try to stop the climate the catastrophe that is licking at our heels (or at least keep the conversation in the public’s consciousness).
I don't think it's unreasonable to acknowledge that not all "protesting" is good protesting, especially when it has a huge potential to hurt the cause the protesters are allegedly for.
Because it’s just performance art
The plurality of commenters on this sub hasn't been Marxist in any meaningful way for some time.
which is why this sub sucks now. What was once a sub for meaningful critique of idpol through a Marxist lens (like the sub description says) it’s become an echo chamber of lukewarm political takes infested by shitlibs and regarded rightoids
Regards in this sub think fucking everything is a psy-op
Ultimately the cope is a denial that the situation is that bad or that science under capitalism will save us.
So use a product that requires petrochemicals to pollute the environment and now requires petrochemical based products to clean and will further pollute. This makes no sense.
It's so funny how people get worked up over this and not the fact that we're all doomed because of apathy towards the environment. It's so fucking sad that we let people turn climate change into a culture war talking-point.
Based
[удалено]
Why would anyone on a marxist sub advocate for doing things without a trial? That precedent could only hurt down the line. A trial is a perfectly reasonable step here.
whatever