Glad for these guys. Their protests are the only ones that consistently get headlines and they make a point that nothing they do is permanent or a public danger.
I used to be more concerned about “le optics” of this but have come to the conclusion I was just being reactionary where I didn’t have to be.
“Their protests are the only ones that consistently get headlines and they make a point that nothing they do is permanent or a public danger.”
No public danger?
Like when they blocked a roadway and kept an ambulance from moving a patient? Or when one of their protests caused enough traffic to delay a responding ambulance resulting in 2 deaths?
Or just in general figuring the best way to get across their message is to sit in a roadway.
Cite your sources babes cuz it looks like you are repeating right wing propaganda straight from the Daily Mail and The Sun 😉
About the incident of the two deaths: Just Stop Oil didn’t delay us getting to M20 crash, says ambulance service
deleted by creator
They succeeded in getting attention. Look at all the comments posted here. The issue needs attention. The issue also needs fact checking. I was pleased with fact checking I got from diffy.chat about the wildfires in LA County. Maybe fact checking bots should be included in online discussion forums.
The bots are mostly langauge models, not knowledge models. I don’t regard them as sufficiently reliable to do any kind of fact checking.
The language model for diffy.chat has been trained not to respond from its own learned parameters, but to use the Diffbot external knowledge base. Each sentence or paragraph in a Diffy response has a link to the source of the information.
That’s still not into the realm where I trust it; the underlying model is a language model. What you’re describing is a recipe for ending up with paltering a significant fraction of the time.
Did you even try diffy.chat to test how factually correct it is and how well it cites its sources? How good does it have to be to be useful? How bad does it have to be to be useless?
I tried it. It produces reasonably accurate results a meaningful fraction of the time. The problem is that when it’s wrong, it still uses authoritative language, and you can’t tell the difference without underlying knowledge.
There does need to be a mechanism to keep the human in the loop to correct the knowledge base by people who have the underlying knowledge. Perhaps notification needs to be sent to people who have previously viewed the incorrect information when a correction is made.
This was very brave. I applaud these activists. We should all do the same until politics listen and act accordingly.
Not graffiti on smooth stonework! Winston, fetch my clutching pearls!
The short-term survival and domination of the shittiest species … the sequel he never published.
And again they are getting attention.
It’s amazing and terrible that so few people are getting how this works.
The climate going to shit should be the #1 news story on TV and the internet everywhere. Yes, it’s more important than money.
If everyone’s just OKAY with living for the short-term regardless of the risk of edging closer to extinction, then we need to all be upfront and make that a petition, a referendum, a signed suicide letter.
I strongly suspect a funding channel originating from fossil-fuel producers.
Okay, assume that’s the case.
So the fuck what?
I keep seeing counterpoints that assume that intent informs effectiveness, when that’s demonstrably just not the case. If your statement is relevant, that means you must be able to draw a causal link between that hypothesis being true and the campaign being ineffective.
Succinctly put, thanks!
I’m sad that even though I’m heavily in support of climate activisim this kind of useless stuff happens.
deleted by creator
Sure buddy
Vandalizing graves and museums - what a great way to get supporters and make people sympathetic to your cause…
I have further ideas - how about beating some pre-schoolers or burning a homeless shelter to protest global warming? Or perhaps throwing mud at the elderly? Drowning some puppies? Since clearly these people believe all publicity is good publicity, think how much buzz that would generate!
There’s a fair bit of evidence that it works. That’s why people keep on doing it.
Academia is such a blessing I love that we have this data
What should they do?
Protest in the designated area so that we ignore them more easily? But not somewhere where it blocks cars? Maybe stop chanting to keep the noise down?
The normal protests don’t seem to work.They could attack the actual guilty parties. I remember a group recently getting on a roof of a manufacturing building, for a company who sold weapons to Israel, and sprayed stuff inside to contaminate their cleanrooms and production areas. That’s pretty rad.
Edit: I had trouble finding an article with video of the roof breach, but I did find a longer video than what was previously posted, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqjdfT5IaOE
deleted by creator
How about actually protesting something that’s related to their cause? Blocking a highway is absolutely one of those. Or, if you want to throw paint at something, how about throwing it at an office of an oil company or a car/private jet of a CEO and not on a fucking grave?
I never said they should not protest at all or not inconvenience anyone, but vandalism of random property or cultural heritage? No, I will not support that.
They have and people whined about it. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taylor-swift-private-jet-climate-activists-orange-paint-british-airfield/
Sure, I expect a non-zero number of people whined about it. However, that article doesn’t mention any. Good on those protesters.
Yeah, since they’ve solely done completely harmless shit up until now, why don’t they just murder some dogs? That’s the same thing!
Every time I see something like this my brain always assumes it’s people that actually have the opposite goal and are just trying to make actual activism look bad. Like how all of the “stop smoking” ads are made by tobacco companies. But in all honesty it’s probably just me overthinking it and these guys are just dumb.
Their tactic is getting climate change in the news headlines. That tactic is working.
What “stop smoking” ads are made by tobacco companies? When googling, I found a “Philip Morris-funded Foundation for a Smoke-free World”, but nothing about ads.
TRUTH was funded by tobacco giants—because the government made them. It was a settlement agreement, if I’m remembering correctly.
Honestly I think they make those TRUTH ads as cringy as possible to make people hate them. Every time I see one I hate it so much it makes me want to start smoking again.
deleted by creator
FYI It’s stop using, not stop to use.
english is not my native language
No worries! Even native speakers make similar mistakes.
