So the meme is in agreement that defacing Stonehenge as a protest was pointless?
There are ways to get attention for a cause without defacing one of the seven wonders of the world. Next time spray that cornstarch in BP’s corporate parking lot.
Like the 3 private jets that were vandalized with orange paint in London. That's the kind of thing I can support, it makes headlines, it grounds the planes reducing emissions, and it specifically targets those who are causing the most harm.
So the meme is in agreement that defacing Stonehenge as a protest was pointless?
It was as pointless as everything else, that's why they did it, it's screaming into the void to get attention.
There are ways to get attention for a cause without defacing one of the seven wonders of the world
Are there though? I'm old enough to remember this has gone on for decades without anyone doing anything of significance and now we're at the actual edge of global catastrophe and STILL people are like "hmn, those kids should be recycling." Bruh, you and so many people have no idea how many lives are going to be lost in the next century while every milquetoast liberal and conservative in the developed world roll their eyes and get pissed at slight annoyances like... checks notes colored corn starch on rocks you will never visit.
It's like trying to shake someone in a dream to get them to pay attention. And the more you scream and hit them, the more they look ahead like zombies.
They HAVE sprayed BP's factories and lots and machines, they have sabotaged equipment and chained themselves to machines and have caused material harm to companies like BP, but that doesn't get any fucking coverage because media doesn't want to encourage "violent activism" for fear of turning away viewers like YOU who are annoyed by such things.
You don’t have to sell me on climate change protests. I’ve attended a few myself.
I’m criticizing the delivery, not the message. The majority of people that heard that protest were those who travelled from around the world to see Stonehenge. Their plans were ruined, and they don’t care any more about climate change than they did that morning. Some may even resent the protesters.
Performative radicalism is only compelling to those already behind a cause. It’s discrediting to everyone else, who should be your target audience.
It was as pointless as everything else, that's why they did it, it's screaming into the void to get attention.
It's not just pointless, it's potentially damaging to the cause. I don't mind if someone rubs against the grain of public sentiment for a cause, so long as the way they do it actually accomplishes a goal.
Are there though? I'm old enough to remember this has gone on for decades without anyone doing anything of significance and now we're at the actual edge of global catastrophe and STILL people are like "hmn, those kids should be recycling."
And how does cornstarching rocks, or defacing art make any kind of difference? Is there any possible outcome that benefits the cause? It seems like the only thing this accomplishes is drowning out any other news about climate change for 2 to 3 weeks.
Bruh, you and so many people have no idea how many lives are going to be lost in the next century while every milquetoast liberal and conservative in the developed world roll their eyes and get pissed at slight annoyances like... checks notes colored corn starch on rocks you will never visit.
Just because someone disagrees with you on how to spend the very limited amount of political capital accumulated for climate change, does not mean they are less informed on the subject than you.
I don't give a fuck about Stonehenge, but it's stupid to believe that others do not. It's also pretty stupid to ignore concepts like blowback and public sentiment.
They HAVE sprayed BP's factories and lots and machines, they have sabotaged equipment and chained themselves to machines and have caused material harm to companies like BP, but that doesn't get any fucking coverage because media doesn't want to encourage "violent activism" for fear of turning away viewers like YOU who are annoyed by such things.
Lol, they arent afraid of turning away viewers, they are worried about turning away advertisers. They are part of the capital class preserving the fossil fuel industry. Of course they don't want to spread violent activism. They would much rather all climate activists display protest that they can utilize to turn the public against the cause.
Which begs the question, why are these groups providing the media with ineffective protests that turn public opinion against the cause and garter a ton of negative press in the first place?
So the meme is in agreement that defacing Stonehenge as a protest was pointless?
The meme is saying you're getting angry about the wrong thing.
Quite literally the opposite, no one will remember that Stonehenge was defaced with cornflour, but we will see and remember climate change.
That's just a meme about the fake outrage used as a diversion, instead of the real issue and why people resort to defacing art and monuments for their cause to be in focus.
Any publicity is good publicity.
THIS
Now, I am not the biggest fan of those kinds of actions, because they are indeed exploited heavily by the burgeois press, but let's talk about attention. I remember there being at least two paint defacings and damaging of private jets here in Germany in 2023 by similar groups. There was next to no press about it - and if you search for it today, it is genuinely hard to find the articles that even mention them, one I found even focusing on the legal questions of insurance, instead of writing about the broader issues at all:
https://www.t-online.de/region/hamburg/id_100188204/letzte-generation-farbattacke-auf-sylter-privatjet-so-hoch-ist-der-schaden.html https://www.aerotelegraph.com/wer-zahlt-bei-einem-farbanschlag-auf-ein-privatflugzeug
So, you would be surprised - actions that target more "deserving" targets often just.... aren't talked about at all, or very little, small footnotes. This at least starts debates, which cannot be denied.
It's not at all one of the seven wonders of the world, is not even the coolest henge in England and like maybe 5 top five in Europe. It's just famous because it was restored well within your parents lifetime for most of us.
Or its a representation of what the future looks like if we keep fighting the people who fight for all of us.
I think the punchline goes multiple ways at once: "the protesters were stupid thinking this would help", "the protesters were stupid in how they tried to protest", and "everyone back then was stupid because it's Waterworld now."
My understanding was more: people are stupid for buying the media's narrative despite the world being destroyed by what the protest was trying to tell us about, including the thing these people are supposedly upset about protecting.
nice whataboutism, "they should do this instead". oh they do, but you don't care when they do.
the delivery didn't deface anything, if you want to focus on the delivery and once again ignore the message at least be honest. willing or not, messages like this do BP bidding
See, I'm reading it as saying that even with 'drastic' action like defacing a tourist attraction, governments just don't care to put any serious thought into the climate change problem. They'll put the blame on protestors for making us think for a minute and then go about their way until the world is uninhabitable.
But that's okay, because for a moment they created a lot of shareholder value in their district.
There's still people in the boat, I'd take that as "it worked".
Maybe if you're a doomer?
Won't you just think of the shareholders? /s
Y'all are protesting the death of humanity wrong /s
Man, the way this channels a mix of "it is the children who are wrong" and sheer impotence is hitting me hard. I mean, it really explains so much about modern activism.
I attended my first protest thirty years ago. Modern activists need to be more clever. Learn the law so you know how to circumvent it. Turning things up to 11 just gets you discredited as “radicals” in the media. It’s a fruitless attempt at awareness that will just get you charged.
Turning things up to 11 just gets you discredited as “radicals” in the media.
Radicals need to exist in order to make the less-radical activists look reasonable by comparison. Otherwise they just get painted as radical no matter how milquetoast their protest is, and the Overton window moves away from their cause.
Learn the law so you know how to circumvent it. Turning things up to 11 just gets you discredited as “radicals” in the media. It’s a fruitless attempt at awareness that will just get you charged.
You do realize that the UK has been illegally criminalizing lawful protests? You do realize that the media does not give a flying fuck about what is legal or illegal or how illegal something is, when painting activists as "radicals" or even worse "terrorists"? In Germany people who glued themselves to the streets were compared to the RAF terrorist organization that planted bombs, abducted and assassinated people, that hijacked planes and committed many armed bank robberies.
What is legal or not does not matter. What is moral or not does not matter. What is true or not does not matter. You have a far right authoritarian government that subverts the rule of law at every possible moment, aided by a fascist media conglomerate that will spread dramatized desinformation against any progressive cause while covering up the very real crimes of the government and aligned groups.
For reference, Stonehenge is currently about 100 metres above what the UK considers to be mean sea level.
But I thought the point of comics was to be scientifically accurate!
made climate activists look stupid for decades to come over some nonsensical and ineffective attention grab
didn't stop climate change
Yeah, seems about right.
They had the right idea when they spray painted those private jets. IDK what they were thinking with the Stonehenge stunt.
ineffective attention grab
Seemed to grab your attention.
The Stonehenge stunt was an ineffective attention grab. Vandalizing the private jets was an effective attention grab.
Like if some Just Stop Oil activist took a shit in the middle of a busy NY street that would get them a lot of attention, but it wouldn't be even remotely positive or effective in any way.
They should stick to vandalizing the property of the biggest culprits of climate change. I and most other leftists can get behind that, and it actually puts a spotlight on the people causing the problem. The Stonehenge stunt just comes off as a petty attack on the public who has little to no say on climate issues.
IDK what they were thinking with the Stonehenge stunt.
I wouldn't put it past Big Oil to infiltrate climate activist groups to make them appear unlikable. Same with throwing paint on a painting.
The only protests I agree with are the ones that don't bother me, are out my way, and have no impact on actually changing things. Also any form of action from a protest should be stopped by the police.
There's no stopping climate change in capitalism.
And nothing was done in the way of ending capitalism. Asking "pretty please stop using oil we will paint things" to a capitalist government is ridiculous. The only way to end emissions is being us the ones who control the industry.
So, from my point of view was a useless, possibly counter productive, action.
They also demand system change not climate change. But resting on "if we don't abolish capitalism, everything else is useless" we will never abolish capitalism. It is not a binary switch. It is a long and hard process for which every action counts. And defying the capitalist order and narrative of the corrupt and immoral government is an important step towards that.
Nobody will be more capitalist and more for the use of fossil fuels after he read whatever Murdoch tabloid complained about this. And who was like "well now i am against climate action" was just looking for an excuse, but always on the wrong side already.
To some extent communism could be trading one problem for another authoritarian that doesn’t care. Powerfully influencing culture to be altruistic and not money hungry is probably the real solution but the tangible one would be a big step back toward democratic socialism. Jus my 2 cents
stop oil are industry plants they were founded by the daughter of an oil exec they're designed to make the real people protesting look crazy by lumping them in
A claim like that requires some sources
That Just Stop Oil is funded by the daughter of an oil exec is very easy to prove and not at all controversial.
Why she funds it is another matter entirely. If she's sincere, she wouldn't be the first child of a conservative billionaire to take a more progressive stance. On the other hand, if it is a false flag operation, it wouldn't be the first time that's been done either.
Here is her sharing her own perspective.
To take an Occam's razor approach, that she's sincere requires assuming...that she's being sincere. That she's operating a false flag requires assuming that she's lying to the press by claiming to care about the environment, and that she has successfully fooled not just the press but also the people she's giving the money to (or an even bigger assumption: that it's a massive conspiracy and everyone involved in JSO is in on it, but nobody has leaked) of her sincerity, and that she believes the best thing she can do to prevent action on climate change is to fund organisations aiming to promote action on climate change.
It's certainly not impossible, but yeah. Occam's razor suggests to me that unless we get more evidence to the contrary, we should put more stock in the idea that she's sincere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Stop_Oil
I can't find any evidence that they were founded by her but she did help found the climate action fund which has donated a large amount of money to them as well as Extinction Rebellion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Getty
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Emergency_Fund
I think she's probably genuine but that's also besides the point. Whether she has alternative motives or not all that really matters is whether the activism is helping or hurting
From my experience capitalism and climate activism are incompatible ideologies. Capitalism is entirely, without a doubt, entirely focused on the bottom line. If it doesn't make them more money and/or costs them more money, they're against it. That's why something as universally bad as smoking took so long to be essentially outed as a problem, and something people should actively avoid. Just watch "thank you for smoking" for more detail on that one.
Cleaning up factory emissions and by-products/waste, doesn't earn companies any money. It's the right thing to do, but it's far easier and cheaper to simply dump the raw waste into the environment. Whether thats chemical runoff, or toxic fumes, or carbon emissions, etc. To safely collect and dispose of the by-products is an expensive process.
Any efforts from companies that are "green" is either that they can offer you a marginally less-bad (environmentally) product at a reduced cost to them. Whether that is because they passed those costs onto the consumer, or because the "green" alternative is actually cheaper, is the only question. As soon as the "green" alternative costs them more and they can't justify an increase in product cost for being "green", they simply won't do it. Anything outside of this scope is simply a PR stunt to try to gain favor with the more environmentally conscious consumers to try to pull them away from their current brand loyalties, over to your brand.
Pretty much all pr stunts of this sort are one-offs, to give the illusion of making an effort, while doing essentially nothing actually helpful.
Unless they can somehow make a profit from "saving the planet" then they won't do it. It's against their very nature.
the conclusion is correct, but might I also add that it's because of short term profit, today not tomorrow.
if capitalism just focused on long term profit, then climate would be tackled, as well as health issues like smoking. these things are all unprofitable.
This is completely valid. I didn't want to get into the economics of short term vs long term gains, etc.
There's a paradox in environmental activism, like with many other things. Basically, if you do everything in your power to avoid an environmental catastrophe, and that catastrophe does not happen, then, did it simply not happen because it never would have happened? Or did your impact avoid the issue?
There's no way to know.
You know what you can tell really quickly? This quarters profits.... Something that seems to be a focus of every capitalist ever.
Drive the earth into becoming an unlivable hellscape, but for a short time, create a lot of value for the shareholders.
Yeah man we have to leave artifacts behind so the aliens know how stupid we were
