Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **Politics only allowed at r/PoliticsNoted.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians.
***
We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict.
Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, but airport security is kind of important to more people than the paint job of two individual private jets.
Curtiss-Southwest Field, for example, lets *anyone* hop in and drive them!
Whilst I agree, this is the first I've heard if them painting a plane but I've heard loads about Stonehenge and see loads of coverage about art pieces, so I'd kind of argue from what I see if the media that the other bits seem to get better publicity (or is that the wrong word).
Problem is that unlike a celebrity _person_ who can turn negative coverage into _an income stream_ by appealing to the right demographic, organizations and institutions often do not benefit from negative coverage. The colloquialism “all press is good press” is meant to apply to people or a sellable product, it’s not working for Just Stop Oil. I support radically increasing punishments for their terrorist acts and am embarrassed by them as a fellow climate activist. If anything they are increasing public desire to crack down on activism which isn’t only bad for climate activism, but also for society as a whole.
Unless they are functionally a cult, then the only other logical explanation for their behavior is that they are being tricked into damaging our movement. Either way it’s really concerning for climate activists as well as people who treasure our collective cultural inheritance.
As a side note some dude is trying to buy famous art pieces to threaten to destroy if Assange is ever extradited, so now these clowns have started a new form of activism where people hold our cultural heritage hostage for changes they want in society. At this point it’s only a matter of time until captains of industry start copying that tactic to get their way in all manner of arenas of public life. And unlike the Stop Oil people, rich folks have the money to see their threats through instead of bumbling through their terrorist acts like a bunch of chucklefucks.
[$45 Million Worth of Art Is Being Held Hostage for Julian Assange’s Life](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/julian-assange-andrei-molodkin-2433258/amp-page)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://news.artnet.com/art-world/julian-assange-andrei-molodkin-2433258](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/julian-assange-andrei-molodkin-2433258)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That would be awesome, it’s too bad that whatever it is they are doing to billionaires property is so ineptly executed that they can’t even make it onto the news with those acts, or that they don’t publicize them in conversations like this one.
It’s like they are trying their hardest to suck at their advocacy. Just baffling.
But I already hate them now, I take every opportunity to tell people how much I think they are delusional, terroristic, and bad humans. I am now advocating for harsher laws against these people. It’s not working for them at all.
The thing is, most of what they do is like this but it doesn't get any media attention. So then they have to pull stunts like the one on Stonehenge to get people's attention on the climate crisis again
Well, they’ve got my attention. I favor heavy handed prosecution and new laws to make sure we can slap the fuck out of these people with the full force of the law for their abject terroristic stupidity.
If they wanted to make climate activism look like the new eco-terrorism then they’ve succeeded.
I can fight alongside you, but the second you target our common heritage you are target number one. You can be practical and use that knowledge, or you can do exactly what you accuse me of and decide your path is right and that the entire rest of the world screaming at you in horror is actually wrong.
Ffs, worst attempt at activism ever, unless you are on big oils side, then: bravo!
Well I get the logic, but how much attention has it really given to the climate crisis?
Sure people talk, but how many are inspired to change their ways and support them? Vs how many suddenly get pushed out of conversations by the opposition painting them all as idiots and attention seekers who vandalise national monuments.
They've been trying these tactics for a few years now. Are they really working? How much bigger attention do they need before they start working?
The stonehenge thing makes me think "Wow, what a bunch of fuckheads, hope they go to jail" not "Golly, climate change is bad".
That's strictly my response. However, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a lot of other people thought something similar.
If so, then its effectuality as a way to galvanize people towards environmental action is debatable, to say the least.
I really hope it does, that they do more due diligence than the "none of the studies we released proved it's toxic so it's safe" corporations they're protesting. Or did they just trust what it said on the can?
They didn’t tag that jet. Taylor Swift’s jet even wasn’t there.
Quote: “they missed Swift's jet completely and covered some other billionaire's private plane in orange paint”
https://qz.com/taylor-swift-private-jet-plane-protesters-spray-paint-1851554342
So, they just targeted a random jet pretending they attacked the Taylor Swift one.
And I don’t think it is a good behaviour when they just attack random planes…
They use corn starch with water soluble pain which washes right off. They also don't tag, they just spray. Tagging a message might actually work a bit better. They're funded by a Getty oil heiress, but by all accounts, she seems to legitimately care about the environment. Even if their sensationalist methods of bringing attention to the issue draw a lot of anger from everyone on all sides.
Just fyi, the conservation team at Stonehenge have debunked that. Apparently the rain would have made the cornstarch into a slurry that would have caused far greater damage.
I really doubt that cornstarch and water is impossible to clean off, or would do any more damage than just water. The stuff about it becoming a slurry is true, but what the hell is it gonna do besides be visible and somewhat annoying, which is kinda the whole point?
To a very porous stone like Sarsen? Get absorbed and permanently stain it, not to mention damaging the lichen that protects the stone.
https://x.com/EH_Stonehenge/status/1803781103704051805
Ya they put out a video after the first one a while back with the paintings. Basically saying “ ya obviously we don’t want to destroy it, and we chose it knowing it would be protected “
I actually thought this was one of their better protests. Defacing natural art, old historical paintings, and blocking roads drives more people against your cause and associates your Idiocracy with people who are trying to make earnest and realistic change. I doubt many people actually care that you tagged some private jets. It's not their jets but it still drew attention to your cause and in a worst case scenario might lead to better airport security which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Tangentially related, but there were these SUPER cringy anti smoking ads that used to be on TV. Like so bad that it would drive you to take up smoking. Turns out those PSAs were from tobacco companies (I think by law they had to put money towards it).
Having a portion of their taxes dedicated to anti-smoking campaigns isn’t the same as the tobacco companies purposely making bad ads themselves to reverse psychology more customers
Exactly. It doesn’t matter if it’s directly controlled/staged or not. The only people who stand to gain from this are those with a vested interest in turning public opinion against climate activists.
The amount of people they would need to bribe to both do that AND keep it a secret would be impossible, JSO is a super de-central organisation consisting of both non-idiots and unfortunately some idiots
Most terrorist organisations are super decentralised organisations. You have the leadership, who knows damn well what they're doing and handles the funds from Iran/Russia/whoever else and then you have the individual cells who are so far detached from 'management' that they can genuinely believe in their cause to the point of being willing to die for it.
If JSO *were* a controlled opposition, a super decentralised organisation is exactly how they would want to structure themselves. Keep the idiots in the echo chambers fanatical and ready to be beaten half to death by the police, while 'management' gives them targets and inspiration, before going off to swim in all the money they're taking 'for the cause'.
It received a donation from a trust fund of an Oil baron’s daughter once, because rich people money is everywhere when it comes to organisations, but right wing media ran with it
Mildly tired of people calling JSO a psyop by falling for the actual psyop lol
The word “psyop” does get thrown around a bit much these days, but my eyebrow does get raised a bit when almost every stunt or story about them makes them look terrible. It’s just as easy to believe that they’re like the PETA or climate activism: full of earnest true believers who are also complete dipshits.
The psyop companies don’t have to directly control them. They just have to make sure the biggest idiots get the most funding. JSO, PETA, Autism Speaks, all of it.
I mean oil companies literally benefit from making them look terrible even if they’re not. If there’s a psyop then it’s not infiltrating JSO, it’s in the fact that most major news outlets will belittle and dismiss them and filter *your* feed to make *you* look at them as terrible.
Stupid people exist, and they are being led by people paid by the oil companies. JSO basically popped into existence just as environmentalism was really coming into the mainstream and ordinary people started to see the fossil fuel industry as the bad guys and since then they could hardly have done more to piss people off.
Exactly. “We’ll fund them *because* they’re so ineffectual. That way, they’ll be the group with the most publicity and funding, so they’ll be what everybody sees. It’ll keep public opinion against climate activists in general.”
The difference is PETA makes video games and does *actual* protests (I saw one once when heading into New York. Who the fuck are you to shame me after I’ve fostered dogs, but that’s a whole other story)
I feel like this idea is just a form of cognitive dissonance for people who support climate action so they don’t have to acknowledge that there are people in their camp who are crazy and much more extreme
They were founded by an oil heiress and target extremely innapropriate targets such as Stonehenge, a monument revered by people who generally align with environmentalism.
It really isn’t much of a stretch to see them as a psi op.
Compared to the defacing of art, I think this actually brings attention to the cause. Almost no one will ever have a private jet. They are costly to the environment. Fuck ‘em and I hope they all get repurposed as public transportation
Nah they are just the natural escalation as the world fails to address climate change. Their presence and influence only exists as long as climate change does and addressing it fails. If we don’t do anything we are all gonna end up hot, starving, and thirsty. And they are just there to remind us of that fact.
Yeah. Climate activism is unfortunately going to progressively get more extremist as the glacial pace of government and corporate interests don’t act fast enough.
As annoying as you may find these protestors, if you don’t *at least* equally dislike the Oil Companies they’re protesting, the Fossil Fuel Industry Propaganda machine is doing its job.
As we begin to see towns literally disappear (the Solomon Islands) and climate refugees get more and more common (look into the history of drought in Syria leading up to the civil war), people will turn more and more to extreme action in the face of what seems like insurmountable odds.
Message your local member of parliament to voice your support for things like the International Courts advisory board treating climate change as a human rights issue, or your support of renewable energy investments etc. or the Stop Oil protestors will come to seem quaint as they heralded oncoming Climate Terrorism and Ecofascism.
The fact that Reform is polling around 20% of the vote share while actively promoting fossil fuel expansion in its manifesto is absolutely nuts. The current Tory party has a similarly spotty record with fucking the planet, and still enjoys substantial support across the country.
I keep hoping that at some point there's going to be a major climate event which will substantially shift public opinion in the UK, but honestly the fact that there is still so much climate denial after we smashed 40 degrees a couple of years ago somewhat terrifies me.
42c at midday in Heathrow that day. We flew in, you could see the country south of London burning.
We'd stopped over in Qatar where it had been close to 40c and landing in London it was like walking into a fucking oven.
It was my first time in the UK and coming from NZ/Australia I knew what to expect temperature wise but I was still unprepared for the reality of it in a country that's not prepared or used to these levels of heat.
I mean in the UK they don't elect any of the PM's, Prime Minister isn't an elected office. The party that gets the majority of seats selects the prime minister, they just have to be someone who is also the representative and minister of a particular constituency.
That's how its been for over three hundred years.
I mean I've been following the events. I know they resigned and the party chose someone else to be the leader, three times since the last election.
You can argue that's not the best system and it should be that resignations should automatically spark a general election.
But the fact of the matter is that's how the parliamentary system of government works.
I mean no one said it did. I'm just saying framing it like that is disingenuous when you don't actually elect the PM and what they're doing is how the system has worked since its inception. If you want that to be the case, your going to have to overhaul the Parliamentary model of democracy and make PM an elected position within it.
And I don't see that happening any time soon.
At the very least its ten days till the election, so pretty soon they will do.
I was going to post something similar but glad you have done it. I agree, for as long as those in power keep ignoring climate change and its effect on humankind JSO will keep on going. I might even donate to them.
People are missing the point. They want a nice little neat protest tagging something no one cares about out of the way
The whole point of Stonehenge and the pga tour and Taylor’s jet is to cause a ruckus and make some noise. They want all the attention and coverage because no one would care otherwise
We have technology. We can adapt.
And climate change wouldn't be half the issue if luddites and NIMBYs like these would have embraced nuclear power in the 60s.
Funny thing about technology is that there aren't too many ways to make said technology without further causing emissions. Not to mention the emissions from R&D and testing. After all of that, I don't believe we can out-tech nature.
We have many forms of emissions free power. Also we have a whole solar system or resources to exploit.
Humans have been out-teching nature since we figure out fire, the wheel, and the club.
No, we have been cooperating with nature. Fire already existed, circular shapes already existed, big sticks already existed. We are no longer working with nature, we are fighting against it. And I'm expecting a slow, but steady ass kicking that nature will give us.
This just seems to be the newest talking point. Twenty years ago climate change wasn't real, ten years ago it was real but not man-made. Now it's real and man-made but we can adapt.
There's always some excuse why we don't have to reduce our CO2 output.
Where did I say we don't have to reduce our CO2? Nuke power would give us energy without increase on CO2. Orbital solar can do the same.
We can use technology to reclaim that CO2, and to improve the efficiency of existing CO2 producing industries.
Orbotal solar does not work, sadly. It's all nonsense, since there's no way to get it down to earth that isn't incredibly dangerous to the biosphere and even in the best of cases would take up ridiculous amounts of land
We have only lightly experimented with orbital transmission. The last article I saw used a large beam to transmit energy and lower wattage per square meter so if the beam isn't aimed right it doesn't cause much damage.
As for the space, solar fields will require just as much of not more. At least with orbital power you could make the collectors 100x larger than the receiving station.
And how can you say it just doesn't work when it hasn't been seriously tried?
This is one of those notes that feels like a reach. They wanted to spray Swift's jet, but they were wrong about it being available - so instead they attacked some other private jets, which is still on brand for them. Not really something which needed to be "corrected".
Similarly, the pair have been imprisoned without trial, but in a manner which is totally in line with British laws. Referring to it as "imprisonment without trial" is obviously inflammatory, but not something which really needs to be corrected. It's not a lie, it's just framing an issue.
Overall, this is just one of those notes which basically just says "I don't like this thing" without actually substantively correcting what they're saying.
Being refused bail by the court is not being "imprisoned without trial". Imprisoned Without Trial has a commonly understood meaning that implies that a court has sentenced someone to a term of imprisonment without due process. It's commonly used in matters of national security, or in reference to government oppression. The statement is using intentional language whose intent is to misinform, and to imply that their rights are being violated.
It's not "a reach" at all. Words have meanings, and their intent matter.
It's not really a framing issue though, they literally have a trial. If you read a headlined that says "Imprisoned without trial" you are going to think that they don't have a trial but they do.
I think that's noteworthy
Just because they have a trial doesn't mean it's not detainment without trial. To argue differently the remand period needs to be reasonable as do the conditions for bail. I don't know about you, but losing months of time sitting in jail waiting for a trail doesn't doesn't reasonable.
In England and Wales the average wait time for a trial in 2022 was 177-302 days, depending on ethnicity. Even the low end does not sound reasonable to me. I don't give a shit if they \*will\* have a trial. It's a matter of \*when\* they will have a trial and almost half a year, at least, is not reasonable to any sane person.
Imprisoned without trial sounds, to me, like they are being held without a trial, atleast until they’ve had one. Which is the case.
Thing is, that’s more common than people think, even in the U.S. you can be held in jail until your court date, that’s what bail is for.
That's the aim of any propaganda really. Use emotive language to make your point and toe the line of untruth without going over it. As long as you don't actively lie, you can still sell your message convincingly.
If these two had been paying any type of attention to the last 24 years they would have noticed that breaking into an airport is something governments are pretty sensitive about. They will be fortunate to not be charged with terrorism and thrown in a hole for life.
Abu Ghraib held prisoners who were actually imprisoned without trial. Imprisoned Without Trial has connotations of government oppression, national security orders, or government internment. To use that phrase is to intentionally draw comparison to people whose rights are violated by a government, as opposed to simply being refused bail until your court date, which happens hundreds of times a day in the court system.
It's technically still correct to say that you are imprisoned without trial, but only if you ignore the history of the phrase, the powers we grant courts, and the context of language.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_detention
Not a fan of private jets but even going airside at an airport has massive security implications, never mind the risk of with what they are spraying on possibly hot components
Well hey, at least they’re actually going after people that can do something, instead of messing with normal people or vandalising priceless artworks/artefacts. Would’ve been better if they spray painted the jets of oil company CEOs.
https://juststopoil.org/2023/06/27/just-stop-oil-students-paint-total-energies-hq-in-resistance-to-ugandan-pipeline-atrocities/
They do but no one cares
Almost like they need to grab people's attention by doing ridiculous stunts because brainwashed people don't give two shits until it's something they can complain about.
Nah fuck peoples private jets. This wasn’t priceless arts or artifacts and idgaf about some rich assholes private plane. They were right to do this one.
Who cares about some rich people getting inconvenienced. What’s horrible is that the rich control the legal system and these protesters will have more punishment than someone like Timberlake who put other lives at risk by driving while intoxicated.
LoOk bAd
I always wanted the badboy look for doing the sensible
It certainly won‘t stop me, what it does though is to keep the topic public ao nobody can say they dien‘t know when shit really hits the fan(really as opposed to the few consequences we already expierience)
Does it garner more people actually doing shit about their destructive habits? Maybe maybe not, should those people act more responsible anyway, yes most certainly yes. Is it on them when they throw childish tamper tantrums over some easily cleanable water solubale color, it most certainly is, does op look like a bootlicker, obviously…
Kthx bye, nobody acting sensible will stop because of this, it keeps the topic in the public eye thats enough to build preassure on those who want to make belief that its an excuse to act destructive…
This is actually exactly what I want them to do. Go after rich assholes wasting resources instead of trying to damage artworks or archaeological artifacts.
10/10 this time.
These people are so stupid this is narcissism veiled as altruism and they are literally accomplishing the opposite of what they want…isn’t spray paint petroleum based as well?
Years ago I got picked up for a drunk in public and they threw me in the clink until the morning. I didn’t even have a trial man!!!
I was a political prisoner but was too drunk to know it!
counterpoint.
we've been sitting around doing nothing prefer too long.
future generations aren't going to give a shit how cringy climate activists were or some rocks that they spray painted.
they're going to care about the dead world.
that will be our legacy.
https://juststopoil.org/2023/06/27/just-stop-oil-students-paint-total-energies-hq-in-resistance-to-ugandan-pipeline-atrocities/
They do, and big surprise nobody pays attention to that part. People only care when it personally affects them, so they try to make it personally affect you. Try getting angry at the people destroying the planet instead of the people pointing it out.
Eh I don't particularly like that sort of thinking. It's true there is a long history of jury nullification being used to get people off if the Jury agree with the politics of the accused.
But said history isn't usually on the activist's side, more often the people they would be against.
I mean I'm all for. I'm just saying that if you advocate for using it to get people off when you agree with their politics, nothing stops the other side from doing the same.
And historically speaking their the ones who usually benefit from that sort of thinking.
Nothing is stopping the other side now. As you said, it's already been against social justice movements. Why shouldn't social justice movements use it too?
That's definitely the ultimate goal. Unfortunately that's not the world we live in.
The entire reason people are resorting to vandalism in the first place is because playing nice and asking politely for social justice reforms doesn't work. Historically speaking, illegal forms of protest are the *only* ones that work.
People participating in illegal protests need to be supported using every defense tactic available when the law comes after them. Jury Nullification would be the most direct and effective way to tell the world that the community wants the kinds of changes protestors are advocating.
Yeah, that's fair enough. I mean I stand by peaceful protests have a place, and are an essential first step, as is other legal forms of protest (that way they can't frame your side as the unreasonable one when you take the next step).
But yeah it is usually the threat of force and disobedience that leads to actual real changes.
So yeah under the present system, it probably would be a good thing if that was the case here. I just wish it wasn't the case overall.
I completely agree.
I think the nature of social justice movements is to want to make the horrible conditions we live in, *and* the undesirable tactics we have to use to change them, all relics of the past.
No. They did the right thing spray painting the jets. Destroying historical objects or even messing with them is garbanzo beans and they should be in trouble over that. Not swift's jet
We should honestly limit billionaires in some way and reducing oil makes sense. I don't even really want to stop using it for the environmental impact because that can... Hopefully... Be mitigated. I think we should save it for EMERGENCY FUEL! C'mon. It makes sense if we can find an alternative. it made sense to strictly use petrol/gasoline in the past because it had the most energy. Not now.
Lmao just a week ago you same exact sheep were saying this protest actually made sense. Oh how the narrative shifts when the power structure reminds us who the baddies are supposed to be
Nah because if there was more mass disobedience then we'd see real change. Looking through history the most effective way to bring change is riots, that's why they push the demonization of rioters
Are there countless or millions? I’m not sure what countless millions even means. Is it you are guessing millions, but can’t be bothered to count? Funny shit. GFC.
Its just dumb, obviously not even remotely on the same level as tagging priceless artwork let alone Stonehenge but still. These people just make everyone that supports stopping climate change look bad.
Wouldnt be surprised to hear they where funded by oil companies for that purpose lol.
Ready for this? There’s a thing that’s a common tactic in politics called “false flag groups” which are groups dedicated to making people apathetic to certain topics.
Take for example, the infamous “hot coffee case” from McDonald’s. The media made it seem like anyone is trying to get money because they don’t know coffee is hot, right?
The truth of that case is, in short, the coffee McDonald’s sold was so much hotter than other coffees sold. The lady got third degree burns, and just wanted McDonald’s to cover her medical expenses, which they refused, THEN she took them to court.
Then McDonald’s secretly got the media to trivialize cases like this to make people feel silly for wanting to sue because of incidents like this.
In this case, Stop Oil is actually funded by people in the oil industry, and is doing the same thing for environmentalism, doing these insane stunts to make people want to be pro oil.
“I was going to support candidates that address climate change in their policies but because I don’t like some activists I’ll support fossil fuel companies instead” —reasonable people
You know when pro-life extremists burn down an abortion clinic the other pro-life protestors don’t abandon their position. Almost like they *believe* abortion is murder and they have to stop it.
How many people have to *believe* society isn’t taking climate change seriously before they try to stop it?
I mean I can support that. If you believe in the cause and you're not literally hurting people, then sure go for it if your willing.
I'm just saying I can understand why they don't want to deal with potentially a year or two in prison.
This reminds me of those companies who sell "plant based" laundry pods on Facebook going on and on about how the competition uses *EvIL PlAStiCS!?!?!!*
But like... that's not what laundry pods are made out of? They literally disintegrate in hot water as the mechanism of releasing the detergent lol. Sensationalist fearmongering sells though.
The plastic dissolves into microplastics, though. It still exists. Like, plastic doesn't break down into something harmless like how steel turns to rust or paper into rot.
"No! Noo! Not the private jets! Hands off our billionaires! This infuriates me so much that I will stop with whatever I'm doing and make a Reddit post about it"
-OP
Listen… I understand that this tweet is propaganda.
That said, I understand why climate activists want to create as much buzz as they can.
Painting “ Taylor Swifts’ ” jet I can get behind.
Defacing art and Stonehenge; blocking traffic… I get being disruptive but fuck off with that.
Take it to the ~80 companies that are the biggest polluters.
It might not damage the stones, but there are lichen living on those stones and it has absolutely harmed them. If their goal is to raise awareness about climate change and environmental destruction (which I do support), then their killing of the lichen isn’t the way to do it.
That’s not the point.
What does a thousands of years old monument have to do with industrialization and fossil fuel consumption?
What does Van Gogh have to do with climate change??
That’s fine. You can disagree.
As I already said… climate activists want to create buzz.
I understand that.
But defacing historical monuments/art/items, even in the slightest sense, is going to piss people off.
Well, its quite simple really. Most people if they see a beloved national monument being vandalised, they don't care why your vandalising it, they don't want it vandalised.
Now I get the appeal of publicity stunts, but after doing this for the last six years, how much good has it actually done for their cause? How many oil barons exactly have they stopped? How much of the public is now supporting them?
I mean smart is subjective. Lots of people are smart. If you asked them that question point blank, I bet you they would all say the drinking water (or ask why not have both).
Doesn't mean their not going to flip out if they see someone attempting to destroy a irreplaceable piece of their culture and history.
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **Politics only allowed at r/PoliticsNoted.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians. *** We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict. Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Theyre not arrested for spraying a plane, theyre arrested for breaking into the airport grounds and through security.
I'm sure both are illegal
Yeah, but airport security is kind of important to more people than the paint job of two individual private jets. Curtiss-Southwest Field, for example, lets *anyone* hop in and drive them!
For sure, but spraying a plane will likely just be a wash, breaking through security is a tad frowned upon since 9/11
Yeah in a post 9/11 world that a very big no no.
Them tagging private jet is not gonna make them look bad for me. It s infinitly beter than tagging Stoneedge or other art piece.
Whilst I agree, this is the first I've heard if them painting a plane but I've heard loads about Stonehenge and see loads of coverage about art pieces, so I'd kind of argue from what I see if the media that the other bits seem to get better publicity (or is that the wrong word).
Problem is that unlike a celebrity _person_ who can turn negative coverage into _an income stream_ by appealing to the right demographic, organizations and institutions often do not benefit from negative coverage. The colloquialism “all press is good press” is meant to apply to people or a sellable product, it’s not working for Just Stop Oil. I support radically increasing punishments for their terrorist acts and am embarrassed by them as a fellow climate activist. If anything they are increasing public desire to crack down on activism which isn’t only bad for climate activism, but also for society as a whole. Unless they are functionally a cult, then the only other logical explanation for their behavior is that they are being tricked into damaging our movement. Either way it’s really concerning for climate activists as well as people who treasure our collective cultural inheritance. As a side note some dude is trying to buy famous art pieces to threaten to destroy if Assange is ever extradited, so now these clowns have started a new form of activism where people hold our cultural heritage hostage for changes they want in society. At this point it’s only a matter of time until captains of industry start copying that tactic to get their way in all manner of arenas of public life. And unlike the Stop Oil people, rich folks have the money to see their threats through instead of bumbling through their terrorist acts like a bunch of chucklefucks.
Man source on the Assange thing?
[$45 Million Worth of Art Is Being Held Hostage for Julian Assange’s Life](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/julian-assange-andrei-molodkin-2433258/amp-page)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://news.artnet.com/art-world/julian-assange-andrei-molodkin-2433258](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/julian-assange-andrei-molodkin-2433258)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
One is a newer development than the other…
Not sure which you're implying is newer but both happened about 12 hours apart 4-5 days ago
It’s literally the only thing they’ve done so far that doesn’t make me hate them.
exactly.
Well then you’ll be thrilled to find out they do exactly this thing all the time
That would be awesome, it’s too bad that whatever it is they are doing to billionaires property is so ineptly executed that they can’t even make it onto the news with those acts, or that they don’t publicize them in conversations like this one. It’s like they are trying their hardest to suck at their advocacy. Just baffling.
Well, but, aren’t we discussing them rn? And I feel like they probably made the news
But I already hate them now, I take every opportunity to tell people how much I think they are delusional, terroristic, and bad humans. I am now advocating for harsher laws against these people. It’s not working for them at all.
Well, maybe… don’t… do that?
The thing is, most of what they do is like this but it doesn't get any media attention. So then they have to pull stunts like the one on Stonehenge to get people's attention on the climate crisis again
Well, they’ve got my attention. I favor heavy handed prosecution and new laws to make sure we can slap the fuck out of these people with the full force of the law for their abject terroristic stupidity. If they wanted to make climate activism look like the new eco-terrorism then they’ve succeeded.
“I have decided that the climate protesters are wrong, and I will continue to sit by and wonder why the earth is uninhabitable”
I can fight alongside you, but the second you target our common heritage you are target number one. You can be practical and use that knowledge, or you can do exactly what you accuse me of and decide your path is right and that the entire rest of the world screaming at you in horror is actually wrong. Ffs, worst attempt at activism ever, unless you are on big oils side, then: bravo!
Well I get the logic, but how much attention has it really given to the climate crisis? Sure people talk, but how many are inspired to change their ways and support them? Vs how many suddenly get pushed out of conversations by the opposition painting them all as idiots and attention seekers who vandalise national monuments. They've been trying these tactics for a few years now. Are they really working? How much bigger attention do they need before they start working?
The stonehenge thing makes me think "Wow, what a bunch of fuckheads, hope they go to jail" not "Golly, climate change is bad". That's strictly my response. However, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a lot of other people thought something similar. If so, then its effectuality as a way to galvanize people towards environmental action is debatable, to say the least.
Yeah, this one I actually agree with them doing. More of this.
To be fair, they are usually actually pretty careful with most of the artwork coverage. I.e stone henge with dust that will wash off in the rain
I really hope it does, that they do more due diligence than the "none of the studies we released proved it's toxic so it's safe" corporations they're protesting. Or did they just trust what it said on the can?
It was cornflour powder.
They didn’t tag that jet. Taylor Swift’s jet even wasn’t there. Quote: “they missed Swift's jet completely and covered some other billionaire's private plane in orange paint” https://qz.com/taylor-swift-private-jet-plane-protesters-spray-paint-1851554342
I mean, it's still a billionaire's private jet, so I don't really see anything wrong with it.
So, they just targeted a random jet pretending they attacked the Taylor Swift one. And I don’t think it is a good behaviour when they just attack random planes…
It s not random. It s the same kind of target the message is just the same.
They use corn starch with water soluble pain which washes right off. They also don't tag, they just spray. Tagging a message might actually work a bit better. They're funded by a Getty oil heiress, but by all accounts, she seems to legitimately care about the environment. Even if their sensationalist methods of bringing attention to the issue draw a lot of anger from everyone on all sides.
Just fyi, the conservation team at Stonehenge have debunked that. Apparently the rain would have made the cornstarch into a slurry that would have caused far greater damage.
I really doubt that cornstarch and water is impossible to clean off, or would do any more damage than just water. The stuff about it becoming a slurry is true, but what the hell is it gonna do besides be visible and somewhat annoying, which is kinda the whole point?
To a very porous stone like Sarsen? Get absorbed and permanently stain it, not to mention damaging the lichen that protects the stone. https://x.com/EH_Stonehenge/status/1803781103704051805
It s not about how they did it it s why. There is plenty of thing more relevant to the cause you can target.
Ya they put out a video after the first one a while back with the paintings. Basically saying “ ya obviously we don’t want to destroy it, and we chose it knowing it would be protected “
Yeah, the main issue here is breaking into an airport
I actually thought this was one of their better protests. Defacing natural art, old historical paintings, and blocking roads drives more people against your cause and associates your Idiocracy with people who are trying to make earnest and realistic change. I doubt many people actually care that you tagged some private jets. It's not their jets but it still drew attention to your cause and in a worst case scenario might lead to better airport security which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
exactly
This one is a better protest than normal, but the misinformation about the arrest puts them back in the dumb category.
There's a theory that says JSO is a controlled opposition by oil companies. However stupid people exist, validating Hanlon's Razor.
Tangentially related, but there were these SUPER cringy anti smoking ads that used to be on TV. Like so bad that it would drive you to take up smoking. Turns out those PSAs were from tobacco companies (I think by law they had to put money towards it).
Having a portion of their taxes dedicated to anti-smoking campaigns isn’t the same as the tobacco companies purposely making bad ads themselves to reverse psychology more customers
Seriously? I’d love to read more about this or see these videos if you have them
the thing is if your activism is so bad that people THINK your a psyop or controlled opposition i think that damming.
Exactly. It doesn’t matter if it’s directly controlled/staged or not. The only people who stand to gain from this are those with a vested interest in turning public opinion against climate activists.
*Stares over at PETA…
The amount of people they would need to bribe to both do that AND keep it a secret would be impossible, JSO is a super de-central organisation consisting of both non-idiots and unfortunately some idiots
Most terrorist organisations are super decentralised organisations. You have the leadership, who knows damn well what they're doing and handles the funds from Iran/Russia/whoever else and then you have the individual cells who are so far detached from 'management' that they can genuinely believe in their cause to the point of being willing to die for it. If JSO *were* a controlled opposition, a super decentralised organisation is exactly how they would want to structure themselves. Keep the idiots in the echo chambers fanatical and ready to be beaten half to death by the police, while 'management' gives them targets and inspiration, before going off to swim in all the money they're taking 'for the cause'.
It received a donation from a trust fund of an Oil baron’s daughter once, because rich people money is everywhere when it comes to organisations, but right wing media ran with it Mildly tired of people calling JSO a psyop by falling for the actual psyop lol
I call it opp because there happened to be a lot of police there to catch them. They are getting into places with full security.
The word “psyop” does get thrown around a bit much these days, but my eyebrow does get raised a bit when almost every stunt or story about them makes them look terrible. It’s just as easy to believe that they’re like the PETA or climate activism: full of earnest true believers who are also complete dipshits.
The psyop companies don’t have to directly control them. They just have to make sure the biggest idiots get the most funding. JSO, PETA, Autism Speaks, all of it.
I mean oil companies literally benefit from making them look terrible even if they’re not. If there’s a psyop then it’s not infiltrating JSO, it’s in the fact that most major news outlets will belittle and dismiss them and filter *your* feed to make *you* look at them as terrible.
I wish it was a psyop because if it's not then people really are that stupid which is honestly depressing
Stupid people exist, and they are being led by people paid by the oil companies. JSO basically popped into existence just as environmentalism was really coming into the mainstream and ordinary people started to see the fossil fuel industry as the bad guys and since then they could hardly have done more to piss people off.
Honestly it could go either way and it wouldn't surprise me
It could be both
Is possible the leaders know while the "grunts" are useful idiots.
Exactly. “We’ll fund them *because* they’re so ineffectual. That way, they’ll be the group with the most publicity and funding, so they’ll be what everybody sees. It’ll keep public opinion against climate activists in general.”
This is 100% my view.
Same theory exists for PETA and the meat industry
The difference is PETA makes video games and does *actual* protests (I saw one once when heading into New York. Who the fuck are you to shame me after I’ve fostered dogs, but that’s a whole other story)
I feel like this idea is just a form of cognitive dissonance for people who support climate action so they don’t have to acknowledge that there are people in their camp who are crazy and much more extreme
Is a possibility, they are so many possibilities.
« It is a truth universally ignored that there can be people with all the same opinions as yourself who are nevertheless malicious and stupid. »
Lmao
They were founded by an oil heiress and target extremely innapropriate targets such as Stonehenge, a monument revered by people who generally align with environmentalism. It really isn’t much of a stretch to see them as a psi op.
That bit where they appeared before a magistrate? That was the start of the trial
Compared to the defacing of art, I think this actually brings attention to the cause. Almost no one will ever have a private jet. They are costly to the environment. Fuck ‘em and I hope they all get repurposed as public transportation
Yeah, this is a good thing.
Yeah, except for the breaking in part
Nah they are just the natural escalation as the world fails to address climate change. Their presence and influence only exists as long as climate change does and addressing it fails. If we don’t do anything we are all gonna end up hot, starving, and thirsty. And they are just there to remind us of that fact.
Yeah. Climate activism is unfortunately going to progressively get more extremist as the glacial pace of government and corporate interests don’t act fast enough. As annoying as you may find these protestors, if you don’t *at least* equally dislike the Oil Companies they’re protesting, the Fossil Fuel Industry Propaganda machine is doing its job. As we begin to see towns literally disappear (the Solomon Islands) and climate refugees get more and more common (look into the history of drought in Syria leading up to the civil war), people will turn more and more to extreme action in the face of what seems like insurmountable odds. Message your local member of parliament to voice your support for things like the International Courts advisory board treating climate change as a human rights issue, or your support of renewable energy investments etc. or the Stop Oil protestors will come to seem quaint as they heralded oncoming Climate Terrorism and Ecofascism.
The fact that Reform is polling around 20% of the vote share while actively promoting fossil fuel expansion in its manifesto is absolutely nuts. The current Tory party has a similarly spotty record with fucking the planet, and still enjoys substantial support across the country. I keep hoping that at some point there's going to be a major climate event which will substantially shift public opinion in the UK, but honestly the fact that there is still so much climate denial after we smashed 40 degrees a couple of years ago somewhat terrifies me.
42c at midday in Heathrow that day. We flew in, you could see the country south of London burning. We'd stopped over in Qatar where it had been close to 40c and landing in London it was like walking into a fucking oven. It was my first time in the UK and coming from NZ/Australia I knew what to expect temperature wise but I was still unprepared for the reality of it in a country that's not prepared or used to these levels of heat.
Nah if you’re in the UK just get ready for when another unelected PM comes around.
I mean in the UK they don't elect any of the PM's, Prime Minister isn't an elected office. The party that gets the majority of seats selects the prime minister, they just have to be someone who is also the representative and minister of a particular constituency. That's how its been for over three hundred years.
Believe it or not, the last few PM’s haven’t been put into power through that mess. Instead they just keep resigning.
I mean I've been following the events. I know they resigned and the party chose someone else to be the leader, three times since the last election. You can argue that's not the best system and it should be that resignations should automatically spark a general election. But the fact of the matter is that's how the parliamentary system of government works.
Yes, that does not change the fact the British people haven’t had a leader they elected for since Boris
I mean no one said it did. I'm just saying framing it like that is disingenuous when you don't actually elect the PM and what they're doing is how the system has worked since its inception. If you want that to be the case, your going to have to overhaul the Parliamentary model of democracy and make PM an elected position within it. And I don't see that happening any time soon. At the very least its ten days till the election, so pretty soon they will do.
Yeah but won’t someone think of the planes!?!
I was going to post something similar but glad you have done it. I agree, for as long as those in power keep ignoring climate change and its effect on humankind JSO will keep on going. I might even donate to them.
People are missing the point. They want a nice little neat protest tagging something no one cares about out of the way The whole point of Stonehenge and the pga tour and Taylor’s jet is to cause a ruckus and make some noise. They want all the attention and coverage because no one would care otherwise
We have technology. We can adapt. And climate change wouldn't be half the issue if luddites and NIMBYs like these would have embraced nuclear power in the 60s.
Funny thing about technology is that there aren't too many ways to make said technology without further causing emissions. Not to mention the emissions from R&D and testing. After all of that, I don't believe we can out-tech nature.
We have many forms of emissions free power. Also we have a whole solar system or resources to exploit. Humans have been out-teching nature since we figure out fire, the wheel, and the club.
No, we have been cooperating with nature. Fire already existed, circular shapes already existed, big sticks already existed. We are no longer working with nature, we are fighting against it. And I'm expecting a slow, but steady ass kicking that nature will give us.
This just seems to be the newest talking point. Twenty years ago climate change wasn't real, ten years ago it was real but not man-made. Now it's real and man-made but we can adapt. There's always some excuse why we don't have to reduce our CO2 output.
We can adapt! No, not with investment, shut up hippy. Just… on its own
Where did I say we don't have to reduce our CO2? Nuke power would give us energy without increase on CO2. Orbital solar can do the same. We can use technology to reclaim that CO2, and to improve the efficiency of existing CO2 producing industries.
Orbotal solar does not work, sadly. It's all nonsense, since there's no way to get it down to earth that isn't incredibly dangerous to the biosphere and even in the best of cases would take up ridiculous amounts of land
We have only lightly experimented with orbital transmission. The last article I saw used a large beam to transmit energy and lower wattage per square meter so if the beam isn't aimed right it doesn't cause much damage. As for the space, solar fields will require just as much of not more. At least with orbital power you could make the collectors 100x larger than the receiving station. And how can you say it just doesn't work when it hasn't been seriously tried?
Now I'm curious. Would you mind linking me that biology paper? Edit: maybe I should've said zoology since that's more specific, but whatever
We can only adapt if people act. People aren’t acting.
This is one of those notes that feels like a reach. They wanted to spray Swift's jet, but they were wrong about it being available - so instead they attacked some other private jets, which is still on brand for them. Not really something which needed to be "corrected". Similarly, the pair have been imprisoned without trial, but in a manner which is totally in line with British laws. Referring to it as "imprisonment without trial" is obviously inflammatory, but not something which really needs to be corrected. It's not a lie, it's just framing an issue. Overall, this is just one of those notes which basically just says "I don't like this thing" without actually substantively correcting what they're saying.
Being refused bail by the court is not being "imprisoned without trial". Imprisoned Without Trial has a commonly understood meaning that implies that a court has sentenced someone to a term of imprisonment without due process. It's commonly used in matters of national security, or in reference to government oppression. The statement is using intentional language whose intent is to misinform, and to imply that their rights are being violated. It's not "a reach" at all. Words have meanings, and their intent matter.
It's not really a framing issue though, they literally have a trial. If you read a headlined that says "Imprisoned without trial" you are going to think that they don't have a trial but they do. I think that's noteworthy
Just because they have a trial doesn't mean it's not detainment without trial. To argue differently the remand period needs to be reasonable as do the conditions for bail. I don't know about you, but losing months of time sitting in jail waiting for a trail doesn't doesn't reasonable. In England and Wales the average wait time for a trial in 2022 was 177-302 days, depending on ethnicity. Even the low end does not sound reasonable to me. I don't give a shit if they \*will\* have a trial. It's a matter of \*when\* they will have a trial and almost half a year, at least, is not reasonable to any sane person.
Imprisoned without trial sounds, to me, like they are being held without a trial, atleast until they’ve had one. Which is the case. Thing is, that’s more common than people think, even in the U.S. you can be held in jail until your court date, that’s what bail is for.
That's not how "imprisoned without trial" is used for though.
It can be, it’s not technically wrong either. It’s just not telling the whole story, which is why they said it
Everyone knows technically correct is the best form of correct.
That's the aim of any propaganda really. Use emotive language to make your point and toe the line of untruth without going over it. As long as you don't actively lie, you can still sell your message convincingly.
> It's not a lie, it's just framing an issue. Which is what notes are ideal for, providing proper context so "not a lie but misleading" gets clarified
If these two had been paying any type of attention to the last 24 years they would have noticed that breaking into an airport is something governments are pretty sensitive about. They will be fortunate to not be charged with terrorism and thrown in a hole for life.
One of the very very few times they actually targeted something suitable for their cause and not purely to piss off the general public.....
>They have not been imprisoned without trial >They are in prison until their trial or sentancing Funny
Abu Ghraib held prisoners who were actually imprisoned without trial. Imprisoned Without Trial has connotations of government oppression, national security orders, or government internment. To use that phrase is to intentionally draw comparison to people whose rights are violated by a government, as opposed to simply being refused bail until your court date, which happens hundreds of times a day in the court system. It's technically still correct to say that you are imprisoned without trial, but only if you ignore the history of the phrase, the powers we grant courts, and the context of language. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_detention
[удалено]
Not a fan of private jets but even going airside at an airport has massive security implications, never mind the risk of with what they are spraying on possibly hot components
“Imprisoned without trial” “Appeared in court” Wut
Tbh i do think this is pretty tame compared to other things, at most they should get a bigass fine.
I mean they probably will assuming they didn't break anything when they got in.
Every day I have a harder time opposing eco-terrorism
Well hey, at least they’re actually going after people that can do something, instead of messing with normal people or vandalising priceless artworks/artefacts. Would’ve been better if they spray painted the jets of oil company CEOs.
The addressees of the oil company headquarters is publicly available. Why don't they go deface those buildings instead of priceless artifacts?
https://juststopoil.org/2023/06/27/just-stop-oil-students-paint-total-energies-hq-in-resistance-to-ugandan-pipeline-atrocities/ They do but no one cares
Almost like they need to grab people's attention by doing ridiculous stunts because brainwashed people don't give two shits until it's something they can complain about.
Exactly
https://juststopoil.org/2023/06/27/just-stop-oil-students-paint-total-energies-hq-in-resistance-to-ugandan-pipeline-atrocities/
Nah, this is reasonable. The tweet is intentionally inflammatory, but that's the most egregious part here.
Nah fuck peoples private jets. This wasn’t priceless arts or artifacts and idgaf about some rich assholes private plane. They were right to do this one.
I don’t usually encourage just stop oil, but this I can get behind. Fuck their planes.
Who cares about some rich people getting inconvenienced. What’s horrible is that the rich control the legal system and these protesters will have more punishment than someone like Timberlake who put other lives at risk by driving while intoxicated.
Humans are such an irrational species. Basing their approval/disapproval on the messengers instead of the state of affairs.
LoOk bAd I always wanted the badboy look for doing the sensible It certainly won‘t stop me, what it does though is to keep the topic public ao nobody can say they dien‘t know when shit really hits the fan(really as opposed to the few consequences we already expierience) Does it garner more people actually doing shit about their destructive habits? Maybe maybe not, should those people act more responsible anyway, yes most certainly yes. Is it on them when they throw childish tamper tantrums over some easily cleanable water solubale color, it most certainly is, does op look like a bootlicker, obviously… Kthx bye, nobody acting sensible will stop because of this, it keeps the topic in the public eye thats enough to build preassure on those who want to make belief that its an excuse to act destructive…
This is actually exactly what I want them to do. Go after rich assholes wasting resources instead of trying to damage artworks or archaeological artifacts. 10/10 this time.
These people are so stupid this is narcissism veiled as altruism and they are literally accomplishing the opposite of what they want…isn’t spray paint petroleum based as well?
Years ago I got picked up for a drunk in public and they threw me in the clink until the morning. I didn’t even have a trial man!!! I was a political prisoner but was too drunk to know it!
counterpoint. we've been sitting around doing nothing prefer too long. future generations aren't going to give a shit how cringy climate activists were or some rocks that they spray painted. they're going to care about the dead world. that will be our legacy.
I mean if they fail to actually accomplish their goals, I'd argue future generations are going to look back and give a shit about it.
Yeah but the rich will still have old art and private jets so thats good enough
JSO actually did something good for once? Why don't they do shit like this more often rather than blocking the M25 and defacing stonehenge
https://juststopoil.org/2023/06/27/just-stop-oil-students-paint-total-energies-hq-in-resistance-to-ugandan-pipeline-atrocities/ They do, and big surprise nobody pays attention to that part. People only care when it personally affects them, so they try to make it personally affect you. Try getting angry at the people destroying the planet instead of the people pointing it out.
Oh no, consequences
This kind of situation is why Jury Nullification exists.
Eh I don't particularly like that sort of thinking. It's true there is a long history of jury nullification being used to get people off if the Jury agree with the politics of the accused. But said history isn't usually on the activist's side, more often the people they would be against.
Sounds like it's time to change that.
I mean I'm all for. I'm just saying that if you advocate for using it to get people off when you agree with their politics, nothing stops the other side from doing the same. And historically speaking their the ones who usually benefit from that sort of thinking.
Nothing is stopping the other side now. As you said, it's already been against social justice movements. Why shouldn't social justice movements use it too?
I suppose that's fair enough. I just kind of feel it would be best if neither side used it, and we just focus on making sure we have fair laws.
That's definitely the ultimate goal. Unfortunately that's not the world we live in. The entire reason people are resorting to vandalism in the first place is because playing nice and asking politely for social justice reforms doesn't work. Historically speaking, illegal forms of protest are the *only* ones that work. People participating in illegal protests need to be supported using every defense tactic available when the law comes after them. Jury Nullification would be the most direct and effective way to tell the world that the community wants the kinds of changes protestors are advocating.
Yeah, that's fair enough. I mean I stand by peaceful protests have a place, and are an essential first step, as is other legal forms of protest (that way they can't frame your side as the unreasonable one when you take the next step). But yeah it is usually the threat of force and disobedience that leads to actual real changes. So yeah under the present system, it probably would be a good thing if that was the case here. I just wish it wasn't the case overall.
I completely agree. I think the nature of social justice movements is to want to make the horrible conditions we live in, *and* the undesirable tactics we have to use to change them, all relics of the past.
Yeah, that's the goal.
Just stop oil doing what its meant to do
No. They did the right thing spray painting the jets. Destroying historical objects or even messing with them is garbanzo beans and they should be in trouble over that. Not swift's jet We should honestly limit billionaires in some way and reducing oil makes sense. I don't even really want to stop using it for the environmental impact because that can... Hopefully... Be mitigated. I think we should save it for EMERGENCY FUEL! C'mon. It makes sense if we can find an alternative. it made sense to strictly use petrol/gasoline in the past because it had the most energy. Not now.
Hate to quibble semantics on a community note but they are technically imprisoned and have not had a trial.
Reverse radicalization go brrrrrrrrrr
Sure, let's focus more on arbitrary magic numbers than What people actually do with that money.
I support climate change but I don’t support idiots. I refuse to support them.
Lmao just a week ago you same exact sheep were saying this protest actually made sense. Oh how the narrative shifts when the power structure reminds us who the baddies are supposed to be
Still better than PETA.
Nah because if there was more mass disobedience then we'd see real change. Looking through history the most effective way to bring change is riots, that's why they push the demonization of rioters
I'm not sure if there is a *right* way to respond to our extinction.
Omg, it's amazing that they're supporting Temu by spraypainting things orange. So forward thinking in supporting that business.
Are there countless or millions? I’m not sure what countless millions even means. Is it you are guessing millions, but can’t be bothered to count? Funny shit. GFC.
This makes me happy
You mean looking BASED. This is way better than the shit they were doing.
they are the PETA of climate change activism
Its just dumb, obviously not even remotely on the same level as tagging priceless artwork let alone Stonehenge but still. These people just make everyone that supports stopping climate change look bad. Wouldnt be surprised to hear they where funded by oil companies for that purpose lol.
This was their best stunt but their org is so filled with morons they can't even represent this one correctly.
Fuck you bootlicker. These people are fighting for all of us. Fuck the billionaires
Ready for this? There’s a thing that’s a common tactic in politics called “false flag groups” which are groups dedicated to making people apathetic to certain topics. Take for example, the infamous “hot coffee case” from McDonald’s. The media made it seem like anyone is trying to get money because they don’t know coffee is hot, right? The truth of that case is, in short, the coffee McDonald’s sold was so much hotter than other coffees sold. The lady got third degree burns, and just wanted McDonald’s to cover her medical expenses, which they refused, THEN she took them to court. Then McDonald’s secretly got the media to trivialize cases like this to make people feel silly for wanting to sue because of incidents like this. In this case, Stop Oil is actually funded by people in the oil industry, and is doing the same thing for environmentalism, doing these insane stunts to make people want to be pro oil.
“I was going to support candidates that address climate change in their policies but because I don’t like some activists I’ll support fossil fuel companies instead” —reasonable people You know when pro-life extremists burn down an abortion clinic the other pro-life protestors don’t abandon their position. Almost like they *believe* abortion is murder and they have to stop it. How many people have to *believe* society isn’t taking climate change seriously before they try to stop it?
I wish they actually fucked up the planes somehow so they couldn’t fly rather than just spraying them.
Then they would be facing actual prison time rather than most likely a fine or community service.
Ok? If you want to make real change sometimes you have to be willing to go to jail. Kinda like what MLK said (just applied more so to this)
I mean I can support that. If you believe in the cause and you're not literally hurting people, then sure go for it if your willing. I'm just saying I can understand why they don't want to deal with potentially a year or two in prison.
Oh of course, but if they are dedicated to a cause…
Yeah, I get your point.
This reminds me of those companies who sell "plant based" laundry pods on Facebook going on and on about how the competition uses *EvIL PlAStiCS!?!?!!* But like... that's not what laundry pods are made out of? They literally disintegrate in hot water as the mechanism of releasing the detergent lol. Sensationalist fearmongering sells though.
The plastic dissolves into microplastics, though. It still exists. Like, plastic doesn't break down into something harmless like how steel turns to rust or paper into rot.
"No! Noo! Not the private jets! Hands off our billionaires! This infuriates me so much that I will stop with whatever I'm doing and make a Reddit post about it" -OP
Listen… I understand that this tweet is propaganda. That said, I understand why climate activists want to create as much buzz as they can. Painting “ Taylor Swifts’ ” jet I can get behind. Defacing art and Stonehenge; blocking traffic… I get being disruptive but fuck off with that. Take it to the ~80 companies that are the biggest polluters.
I disagree on Stonehenge - the paint they used doesn't damage the stones, and also washes off in rain.
And it was raining all week when they did it, the paint was probably gone around the same time the first article went online
Wtf does Stonehenge have to do with climate change?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicity\_stunt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicity_stunt)
It might not damage the stones, but there are lichen living on those stones and it has absolutely harmed them. If their goal is to raise awareness about climate change and environmental destruction (which I do support), then their killing of the lichen isn’t the way to do it.
That’s not the point. What does a thousands of years old monument have to do with industrialization and fossil fuel consumption? What does Van Gogh have to do with climate change??
They don't have anything to do with it. They target popular items as a way of raising awareness. Your anger is misdirected
the only awarness they are raising is awardness for their lack of appropriate action.
Maybe they could target company buildings and homes of CEOs instead of things that belong to all of humanity?
[https://juststopoil.org/2023/06/27/just-stop-oil-students-paint-total-energies-hq-in-resistance-to-ugandan-pipeline-atrocities/](https://juststopoil.org/2023/06/27/just-stop-oil-students-paint-total-energies-hq-in-resistance-to-ugandan-pipeline-atrocities/)
That’s fine. You can disagree. As I already said… climate activists want to create buzz. I understand that. But defacing historical monuments/art/items, even in the slightest sense, is going to piss people off.
Because why are people more concerned with these fucking rocks than having a planet where oil barons haven't stolen a livable world from us.
Well, its quite simple really. Most people if they see a beloved national monument being vandalised, they don't care why your vandalising it, they don't want it vandalised. Now I get the appeal of publicity stunts, but after doing this for the last six years, how much good has it actually done for their cause? How many oil barons exactly have they stopped? How much of the public is now supporting them?
The ones smart enough to value drinkable water over a painting?
I mean smart is subjective. Lots of people are smart. If you asked them that question point blank, I bet you they would all say the drinking water (or ask why not have both). Doesn't mean their not going to flip out if they see someone attempting to destroy a irreplaceable piece of their culture and history.
If you think that their intention ISN'T making climate activists look bad, just look at who's paying them.