Clearly, a good portion of the population isn’t aware of how serious the situation is, it’s still an election issue.
If the right level of awareness was reached, having any kind of oil money around you would be a political death sentence. Instead, Trump has public bribe meetings with oil execs and his base grows because of it.
Pivoting into religious rights about the summer solstice celebration. That’s a stretch if I’ve ever seen one. I don’t see why religious monuments should be exempt from harmless protests but I really doubt you would have called stone hedge one yesterday if it wasn’t for it suiting your argument today.
Is that your stance. You are pissed because you think the religious rights of the revelers got trampled on?
MLK advanced civil rights by being a nuisance. Gandhi pushed Britain out of India by being a nuisance. I’m sure there are others.
It is in the nature of protest to be disruptive. It has to be. If it isn’t, it gets ignored. Climate change is getting ignored. What would you rather they do, go deface an oil refinery? That’ll just get them arrested and the news suppressed. Big public displays that can’t be hushed are the only way to make sure your message reaches the world. These folks have been considerate enough to make sure that message didn’t permanently damage its canvas. I don’t know what more you could ask from them.
I don’t know… oil companies piss off lots of people when they cause oil spills…and yet they’re rolling in profits day in and day out.
Maybe these protesters are trying imitate how oil companies behave since its works so well for them?
Damage the environment and make money if your an oil CEO. Temporarily color stone henge with zero damage and everyone loses their minds. Kinda backwards if you ask me.
But you asked how pissing people off has ever convinced anyone of anything. Oil companies successfully do it all the time. Or any muilti billion dollar industry really.
I’m fully aware that money is the difference, and that’s exactly why we shouldn’t be shitting on the protesters.
We should be asking ourselves why it makes us so angry when protesters cause “damage” but dont have the same reaction to oil companies causing way more damage for profit. Human psychology is interesting.
I’m not seeing oil companies convincing lots of people that they’re benevolent when they do bad things. Especially not after an oil spill. So your claim that that’s what they’re doing doesn’t make much sense to me.
They convince people we need their product despite the damage they cause. They still get investors and convince them their company is profitable. They spend billions of dollars lobbying against alternative energy sources like solar, nuclear, and wind… convincing people they aren’t as viable as oil…when some already are and others could be with more R&D.
They convince governments to allow for more oil drilling sites, despite the environmental risks.
They do A LOT convincing all the time.
They don’t convince people we need their product. We don’t have a choice but use their product. I don’t make ICEs cheaper than EVs. I don’t get to choose what my power company decides to use to generate electricity. I don’t get to tell corporations across the business spectrum not to use plastic.
Those are not choices I get to make. Or you.
Also, it’s interesting how you skipped from people to governments as if there’s no difference.
I’m not sure why you think any significant number of people like oil companies. Do you have any hard data to support that or is it just this sort of conjecture?
Have you seen people coal rolling? I see it all the time. I get the feeling they love oil companies. People who buy huge, gas guzzling SUVs and oversized trucks they dont need dont seem to have an issue with them.
Also governments are made up of people… often elected officials that were VOTED for. I’m not saying everyone loves oil companies. But they convince enough people to like them enough to keep making money.
And that lobbying I mentioned earlier? Yeah, that’s what keeps the rest of us locked into using their products whether we want to or not. They convinced someone, somewhere to stifle competition like EVs.
The message is that people care more about non-damaging vandalism to famous objects than they do about climate change which will cause irreparable damage to many of these same objects, be it through hazardous weather, rising seas, or global conflict.
You might tell that to all the people who are acting like I don’t give a shit about climate change rather than just questioning some activists’ methods.
Clearly, a good portion of the population isn’t aware of how serious the situation is, it’s still an election issue.
If the right level of awareness was reached, having any kind of oil money around you would be a political death sentence. Instead, Trump has public bribe meetings with oil execs and his base grows because of it.
Ok, now please explain, since no one else will, why pissing people off is a good way to achieve that.
Have you ever convinced anyone of something by pissing them off?
They said the same about woman and gay rights movements. You can’t make noise, block traffic or even talk about it without pissing people off.
Not to mention most of the anger is manufactured by oil execs and then enabled by people with little to no proper reasoning skills.
That’s a little different from disrespecting a religious festival, isn’t it?
Pivoting into religious rights about the summer solstice celebration. That’s a stretch if I’ve ever seen one. I don’t see why religious monuments should be exempt from harmless protests but I really doubt you would have called stone hedge one yesterday if it wasn’t for it suiting your argument today.
Is that your stance. You are pissed because you think the religious rights of the revelers got trampled on?
First of all, I didn’t say anything about rights. This is about respecting people. People who are on their side.
Secondly, it was a religious celebration, as it is for British Wiccans and other people of similar faiths every year.
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/21/1183408306/summer-solstice-brings-druids-pagans-and-thousands-of-curious-people-to-stonehen
Maybe you don’t consider them religions or something, but they are.
MLK advanced civil rights by being a nuisance. Gandhi pushed Britain out of India by being a nuisance. I’m sure there are others.
It is in the nature of protest to be disruptive. It has to be. If it isn’t, it gets ignored. Climate change is getting ignored. What would you rather they do, go deface an oil refinery? That’ll just get them arrested and the news suppressed. Big public displays that can’t be hushed are the only way to make sure your message reaches the world. These folks have been considerate enough to make sure that message didn’t permanently damage its canvas. I don’t know what more you could ask from them.
I said I was glad it wasn’t damaged. I don’t know what more you could ask from me.
Why are you more angry about a stunt that did no damage than you are about actual ecological damage done by oil companies for profit?
How do you know what I’m more angry about?
By what you’re crowing about.
I’m “crowing” about the subject of the article. Otherwise known as being on-topic.
Truth that people do not want to hear… sad.
I don’t know… oil companies piss off lots of people when they cause oil spills…and yet they’re rolling in profits day in and day out.
Maybe these protesters are trying imitate how oil companies behave since its works so well for them?
Damage the environment and make money if your an oil CEO. Temporarily color stone henge with zero damage and everyone loses their minds. Kinda backwards if you ask me.
It works for them because they have trillions of dollars at their disposal. The activists do not.
But you asked how pissing people off has ever convinced anyone of anything. Oil companies successfully do it all the time. Or any muilti billion dollar industry really.
I’m fully aware that money is the difference, and that’s exactly why we shouldn’t be shitting on the protesters.
We should be asking ourselves why it makes us so angry when protesters cause “damage” but dont have the same reaction to oil companies causing way more damage for profit. Human psychology is interesting.
I’m not seeing oil companies convincing lots of people that they’re benevolent when they do bad things. Especially not after an oil spill. So your claim that that’s what they’re doing doesn’t make much sense to me.
They convince people we need their product despite the damage they cause. They still get investors and convince them their company is profitable. They spend billions of dollars lobbying against alternative energy sources like solar, nuclear, and wind… convincing people they aren’t as viable as oil…when some already are and others could be with more R&D. They convince governments to allow for more oil drilling sites, despite the environmental risks.
They do A LOT convincing all the time.
They don’t convince people we need their product. We don’t have a choice but use their product. I don’t make ICEs cheaper than EVs. I don’t get to choose what my power company decides to use to generate electricity. I don’t get to tell corporations across the business spectrum not to use plastic.
Those are not choices I get to make. Or you.
Also, it’s interesting how you skipped from people to governments as if there’s no difference.
I’m not sure why you think any significant number of people like oil companies. Do you have any hard data to support that or is it just this sort of conjecture?
Have you seen people coal rolling? I see it all the time. I get the feeling they love oil companies. People who buy huge, gas guzzling SUVs and oversized trucks they dont need dont seem to have an issue with them. Also governments are made up of people… often elected officials that were VOTED for. I’m not saying everyone loves oil companies. But they convince enough people to like them enough to keep making money.
And that lobbying I mentioned earlier? Yeah, that’s what keeps the rest of us locked into using their products whether we want to or not. They convinced someone, somewhere to stifle competition like EVs.
The message is that people care more about non-damaging vandalism to famous objects than they do about climate change which will cause irreparable damage to many of these same objects, be it through hazardous weather, rising seas, or global conflict.
The message seems to be that I care more about it, which is just a lie people are accusing me of.
Not necessarily you or really any one person in general, but as a whole.
You might tell that to all the people who are acting like I don’t give a shit about climate change rather than just questioning some activists’ methods.