• HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    117
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    No, Just Stop Oil is not an “activist” group. They’re in cahoots with the enemy. They’re defamation, and their intent is to give the radical right something to point to.

    Just Stop Just Stop Oil.

    EDIT: There are waaaaaaay too many assumptions happening in this thread.

      • Khrux@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I once read a pretty good write up somewhere on Reddit with proof that they were getting reasonably large financial support from the daughter of an oil baron, and it’s unclear if she supports the left or right.

        On the other hand, a friend of a friend was arrested at a just stop oil rally in Manchester, UK a few months back, and I know him well enough to absolutely believe he thought he was doing what was best for the world, although I’m unsure if he’d deface anything.

        • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Those two things are not incongruous. Your friend was deceived by the leadership who is in the pocket of oil companies.

      • DistractedDev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        There’s no proof but what else could be these people’s problem? They have to know what they’re doing to the image of people who do care about the environment. It’s not like they’re helping. I don’t get it.

        • bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          it doesn‘t seem logical to you that some people are freaking out because everybody is talking about climate change while it is clearly happening and it is becoming obvious that too little is being done too late?

          • DistractedDev@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Man I agree with you. I just feel sick when I see harm being done to such an ancient piece of history. What reason is there for it? Go after something actually related to the problem at least.

            • bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              I think very little can be done to cause public outrage, which is what they want to do. This did it. Also I see no lasting damage being done to Stone Henge. And that‘s true for all their actions, as far as I know.

              • dmention7@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                But are their actions causing public outrage at: a) the causes and purveyors of climate change, or b) the people protesting climate change?

                I don’t think the “any attention is good attention” adage applies to something as politically polarized as climate change.

                • bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  fair point. I think it is heart breaking that they seem to be losing this battle. No matter what kind of protest they choose, I keep hearing: Well, that‘s not the kind of protest I would support. So yeah, maybe they are at a dead end. But maybe not because they chose the wrong kind of protest, but because the public don‘t want change. Look at the European elections. It seems the other side‘s propaganda works a lot better, yeah.

          • DistractedDev@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            All I’m really trying to say is their methods make the environmental movements look bad. I hate that. I want things to get better. I don’t think they’re doing anything to help that. Go after something relevant.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              MLK’s protests made the civil rights movement look bad. People fucking hated him at the time, despite how history has whitewashed him.

              Every effective protest pisses reactionaries and “moderates” off. If it doesn’t piss them off, it isn’t effective.

              • fishos@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                Except this doesn’t make me care about oil one damn bit. What I do care about it harsh penalties for the perpetrators(including community service and paying for the damage to be undone) and protecting heritage sites like this from other shitty humans. Its not activism, it’s vandalism. It has nothing to do with oil. It would be the same as setting the Mona Lisa on fire and screaming about oil. It’s just unhinged.

                • grue@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Except this doesn’t make me care about oil one damn bit.

                  So what? Nobody cares what you think, least of all the Just Stop Oil people. They don’t have to win people to their cause; they just have to keep making themselves a nuisance until everybody’s so pissed off that The Powers That Be are forced to capitulate just to make it stop.

                  Not to mention, it takes extremists like them to make the more moderate environmentalists look reasonable. It’s the same way that the government was eventually forced to concede to the demands of people like MLK: because it became clear that the demands of people like Malcolm X, not the status quo, were the alternative.

              • DistractedDev@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Sure but you can hardly compare this to any of MLK’s protests. As far as I’m aware, he never harmed pieces of ancient history. He got to the root of the problem and did things like sit-ins in white only restaurants. It’s two different kinds of pissing people off.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      If that were true, wouldn’t their shenanigans be more destructive? Soup over a glass protected painting and colored corn starch on a monument are not really rage inducing.

      • Marin_Rider@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        it adds credibility. if they actually destroyed stone henge i doubt even the hardest anarchists would follow them

    • Daerun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Exactly what I came to say. Those guys ara activists pro-oil performing a false flagg attack.

    • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      5 months ago

      “Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers” is what I’m hearing.

      Sorry. But as climate change gets worse and corporations continue to annihilate the living beings on this planet while governments uphold their ability to do so, the protests will only become more radical. We’re long past the point of polite protests, and they didn’t work.

      • DistractedDev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Radical in my mind is burning down an oil plant. Going after a piece of history is disgusting. At least ruffle the feathers of the people you’re standing up to.

        • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’ve read the other replies to my comment, but yours is the only counter that I mostly agree with.

          Yes, going after an oil plant would certainly be a much more radical form of protest. The main issue is that targeting something like that carries massive risk and is unfathomably challenging. That isn’t to say they shouldn’t do it though.

          My comment was more a response to some of the general negative sentiment that I see in response to other protests that are disruptive. It’s usually reactionary claims of “you’re making people mad, so it’s counterproductive”, while ignoring the fact that nothing else has worked.

            • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Protests will always incite rage. The question is “is it justified?”. In this case, sure, but your unhinged comment that started this thread is just reactionary drivel.

              • zaph@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                They give an example of what they consider radical and you respond with “so they should risk everything for you.” That’s like responding with “so you hate waffles” to a tweet saying “pancakes taste good”

                • bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I don‘t think so. He says burning down oil refineries would be great and says himself that the other form of protest is bad. I didn‘t position myself about that. He did, and I think he‘s a hypocrite for doing so.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        “Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers” is what I’m hearing.

        I don’t think that protests have to be polite, however protests do have to be productive. If your environmental group’s political agitation only results in turning public opinion away from the greater movement…I’m not sure if that’s a productive use of political capital.

        I think it’s perfectly reasonable to question a group’s motivation who are participating in unproductive political agitation. Especially considering that their funding comes from an oil heiress, who could be using her vast fortune to be lobbying to the people whom actually have access to the power that can bring about real change.

        the protests will only become more radical.

        I’d hardly say paying some teens to “vandalize” a painting that your family owns is really a radical act of protest. Now if they were conducting these types of actions against oil companies, or the political bodies who support them… That would be radical.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Okay but could they please target things that are actually causing the problem and not thousands of years old stone monuments that can’t possibly have any bearing on anything.

        Otherwise they’re just being vandals. And then bean vandals is counterproductive to their own stated course.

      • HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        This is so hilariously wrong. There’s a lot of stuff I won’t admit to since this is a public account and a public identity. Kairos. What I don’t support, however, is vandalism of historical monuments. Especially when the monument in question is so incredibly irrelevant to the crisis at hand.

      • zaph@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m sorry dog but spray painting an ancient wonder isn’t an environmental protest.

        • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s corn starch. The ancient wonder suffers more defacement in the form of erosion because it rains every 4 seconds in the UK. Stonehenge will be perfectly okay.

          • zaph@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            My wording was trash. It’s not so much the “damage” done but that it doesn’t feel like a productive protest and that it’ll piss of more people than anything.

            • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              Non-violently blocking the entrance to an oil refinery = good protest

              Defacing ancient monument temporarily = bad protest

              • zaph@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                More or less. Painting the jets was pretty awesome too. I’m just afraid the monument is going to make fewer people take them seriously.

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    5 months ago

    Normally I’m tepid on this kinda headline getting, but I feel like Stonehenge of all things is not the ideal target for the supposed intent of these kinds of protests.

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I have the suspicion for a while that the people behind those new climate movements are paid by oil companies and others to make climate activists look bad, and shift the public opinion about climate action.

      All the actions seem to deliberately targeted to anger the mainstream about them.

      Making the naive climate activists at the front the tool of conglomerates.

        • Gigasser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Idk man, sometimes reality is stranger than fiction. Like wasn’t there reporting about the US recently in which the military was spreading antivax misinformation in the Philippines and other countries. Russia and China has their own cyber armies too. It’s not too much of a stretch that large conglomerates and corpos may have their own private propaganda wings either.

          • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            You’re not wrong.

            I also saw some evidence further down this thread that oil companies provide funding to this group that I had previously been unaware of. I deleted my comment shortly after that but it might still be showing up because federation can be screwy.

            • Gigasser@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Hmmm, I would keep an open mind though. It’s not like these oil companies are dumb. They know that their reputation is bad. Slip a few million into the pockets of their enemies and “leak” information that they “the big baddies” are funding these seemingly unlikeable people, and that would likely slowly damage their reputation beyond repair. Although that may just be some light conspiracism on my part.

              Edit Addendum: I do think that whatever actions that just stop oil has done are ultimately harmless to whatever object they “”“”“vandalize”“”“”. Their actions are very good at getting public attention on climate change, and maybe even boosting donations to less radical climate activist groups.

    • germanatlas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      But it raises the question why some paint on some big old rocks is more outrageous than anything the oil & gas lobby did in the past 50 years.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        No it really doesn’t, getting called stupid is far below the standard of even the minimal consequences oil and gas companies have faced in those 50 years. Or the public condemnation of such.

        These people are the “bUt DeMs SaMe!” of facing the consequences of their own actions. The only way you could genuinely think nothing is being done and that some forever student college kids are getting harsher treatment than the most hated companies in the world is if you’re in a position of blinding privilege that obscures the real world movement in the situation.

        • germanatlas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          There are thing done, yes, but these are too little too late and only after massive protests and public outcries for any kind of legislation to somewhat mildly stop climate change (with tummy ache).

          So on one hand we have multi millionaires and billionaires actively destroying the planet, spend decades spreading lies about it and bribing politicians (but it’s called lobbying so it’s ok)

          On the other hand we have people in their teens and 20s who throw soup at glass and paint at rocks and sit on the street.

          Guess which one goes into preventive custody and gets officially declared a suspect of extremism by German intelligence and which one every now and then has to accommodate to some laws taking effect 10 years into the future, which will most likely be abolished before then.

          I just wish it was the other way around…

          • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            You’re just saying all this because you think anything short of guillotining them is “too little too late”, I work in renewables, I literally have a paycheck because of how flat out objectively wrong you are about almost everything you just said.

            They want you to despair and to think they’re untouchable, don’t be the idiot who actually buys what they’re selling.

    • Mrs_deWinter@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      Why not? They used starch. It’s not like Stonehenge is actually damaged. And using symbols people care about is the only way to convey that the crisis we’re facing is actually threatening things we care about. Everything else will be, and has been, ignored.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Because it was built by Naturepath druids.

        They vandalized a structure that represents the purest distillment europeans may have achieved of their ideal vision thus far in human history.

        That’d be like me demanding bike infrastructure by bombing Amsterdam.

    • Dekkia@this.doesnotcut.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      The intent is to get people to talk about them and their message.

      Well known monuments are great for that kinda stuff.

      • fishos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, we’re all talking about what unhinged dicks they are and wishing for them to be disbanded. Great job!

    • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      67
      ·
      5 months ago

      They didn’t destroy anything, the paint can be removed without ruining the site, and they brought more visibility than sitting around with signs.

      I don’t have a problem with this.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m not sure visibility is really what we need at this point. Is there anyone left on Earth that doesn’t know about it? I think what we need instead is political mobilization and coalition-building to increase our political clout and ultimately win elections and create legislation.

        • rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          70
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah I think awareness where they ruin yachts and private planes is better than destroying common cultural heritage. Wtf

          • eksb@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            They probably know that if they put corn starch on Stonehenge they’ll be in jail for a few days and get community service, but if they put spray paint on a billionaire’s yacht, they’d get shot.

            • Windex007@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              27
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              Well the top comment was “fuck these people” so if the goal was to build broad public support it is having the opposite effect.

              Alternatively, EVERYONE is cheering for those fucking Orcas, so… Imagine being dumber than a whale.

            • neonred@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              “It will go away, no harm done” is your stance? Well, there is harm done, if not only on the societies feeling of sanity and security. What was the purpose of that action? To seed shock and “ruffle some feathers”, sow disbalance under the coat of “shaking sleeping people up”.

              “No harm done”? Well, then let me waterboard you, hit you, hit your wife and children. The blue specks will go away, no harm done. Your psychological effects? They will go away, seek therapy. You’re still less affected people than the society.

              Of course this was sarcasm. But think about what stance you just took and reflect.

              • notabot@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                What was the purpose of that action? To seed shock and “ruffle some feathers”, sow disbalance under the coat of “shaking sleeping people up”.

                A goal at which it has singularly failed. There’ll be a bit of noise in the papers for a day or two, Stonehenge will be cleaned off with “No harm done” and life will move on with no useful change.

                Their stunts were effective the first time or two, but now are largely ignored or even just cause irritation.

                If they, indeed we, want to change the trajectory of human caused climate damage we need to build bridges at the community level and bring people together to force the hand of the political class. These stunts don’t do that, they just give ammunition to those who seek to prevent positive change.

          • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Ah but you see then JustStopOil’s millionaire founder might have his expensive toys damaged then.

          • underscore_@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Maybe it’s that this is a better a metaphor for the destruction of the common cultural heritage of the environment? Not many people can relate to or are inconvenienced by a very expensive private boat sinking.

        • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Apparently everyone still doesn’t get how serious it is if they get worked up over paint on Stonehenge more than over the climate catastrophy.

          • Carrolade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            The assumption that people think problems need to be solved is just that, an assumption. Conservatives believe in tradition, where problems do not get fixed. Fixing problems = bad, because fixes are changes from tradition.

            Most people are somewhere on a scale between conservative and progressive though. But you certainly don’t want to just assume most people want things fixed, it’s unfortunately just not true. It’s just projecting progressive personality traits onto people that have less of them for whatever reason.

            So no, not apparently. It’s much, much worse than simple ignorance.

          • Iheartcheese@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Imagine they spray painted your car and then somebody said why are you mad about your car when the environment is fucked.

            • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              I don’t have a car.
              And took a job that pays less than other offers, cause it’s within bicycle distance from my home, which I chose cause it’s in a bike-friendly area.
              I know the impact is low, but at least I’m not part of the problem. I don’t think I could cut down on my CO2 any more while still living in society.

              • Iheartcheese@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                Okay imagine somebody vandalized your bike and then said you shouldn’t be complaining when the environment is fucked.

                • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I really don’t understand what point you’re trying to make here.
                  They don’t vandalize the property of private citizens.
                  Their critics say they should (spray paint private jets instead of rocks).

                  This is more like “what if someone vandalized the scenic rock formation I can see from my bedroom window”.
                  And if they spray painted a message about fightng the climate catastrophy on it, I’d love it.

        • polonius-rex@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          people are aware of it in the sense that it’s a thing that vaguely exists on the horizon

          if society doesn’t want to be melted by climate change, that demonstrably isn’t going to be enough to stop it

          • Carrolade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 months ago

            I’m not so sure. That was probably true before the past decade of record breaking heat waves, intensifying storms, etc.

            Now it’s a variety of other problems, from not giving a fuck and hoping god raptures them before then, to having other priorities like the economy and thinking technical solutions will fix it, to not believing it’s human-caused, etc. It’s political hurdles now, convincing people of the importance of helpful measures, as opposed to simply trying to remind them of the problem.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          The amount of people justifying calling it global warming is still is kinda shocking to be honest. The ignorance is probably why people are still bringing kt to light.

          Theres people in the comments saying it causes warming and that’s why they call it that……

          • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            The amount of people justifying calling it global warming is still is kinda shocking to be honest.

            I was told for decades by activists and global leaders it was global warming. For example, An Inconvenient Truth says global warming dozens of times. Are you now telling me those people were wrong?

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Yes, it’s propaganda lmfao. Wow.

              The term warming is used to detract from the truth, this is shocking how few people understand this simple concept used to create propaganda. And the public perpetuates it.

              It’s been climate change for decades as well, you’re just eating into the politics like most people here.

          • OfCourseNot@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            You are right. Sort of, climate crisis would be more appropriate. The word ‘warming’ is not concerning enough, if at all, and doesn’t convey the actual gravity of the current situation very well.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I don’t think that there is any purpose to “bringing visibility” to global warming in 2024. Effectively everyone is already aware of global warming and has been for some time.

        The issue isn’t awareness, but disagreement over the weight to put on policies to mitigate it. And I don’t expect that doing stuff like this is going to change people’s positions on that weight.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s less about visibility that it’s happening, but that it’s not properly fought.

        • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          If this isnt going to change anyones opinions, then why the outrage? We’re all fucked anyways, so let them be upset.

          More people tone policing these activists than are upset about the very possible end of our species.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          The fact that you’re using the wrong term just shows that yeah, it kinda does need more visibility I guess.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              It’s not global warming though, it’s climate change because it causes extremes at both ends. It’s extremely important to stop perpetuating the wrong term.

              Maybe the one that needs to grow up is the ones not educating themselves on what the correct terms are and how it’s not just “warming”…? Yeah…

              • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Global warming is still a correct term because the globe is warming.

                Some areas aren’t getting warmer. But the globe is. Hence global warming, not everywhere without exception warming.

                We only moved on to saying climate change because some morons were pushing the same bullshit view that you are - iF gLoBaL wARmiNg iS ReAL hOw CoMe XYZ pLacE wAs CoLdEr tHiS yEaR???4

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  iF gLoBaL wARmiNg iS ReAL hOw CoMe XYZ pLacE wAs CoLdEr tHiS yEaR???4

                  Funnily enough, that’s exactly why we no longer use warming, since people need to continually explain that no, it’s just warming since when that’s the word that’s used, it’s used to intentionally detract from the other side.

                  We seem to agree that it causes extremes at both ends, it just seems like it’s a bunch of dinosaurs in this thread that can’t comprehend they were taught the incorrect term.

                  When someone says global warming it’s a litmus test, you bring up the extremes at both ends and they give you a blank stare.

                  Since they literally think it’s only warming since it’s a stupid fucking term…… it’s kinda like how politics used marijuana as a term instead of the correct cannabis term. It’s fucking propaganda lmfao. Keep perpetuating this shit though.

          • kbal@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            What “wrong term”? Global warming? Because The Guardian prefers to call it “global heating”? Or am I missing something, because that complaint would be amazingly petty.

            Anyway it’s not about bringing visibility to global warming to make people aware that it’s going on. It’s about making a statement. That statement, as I understand it, is “Climate change! Wake the fuck up and do something about it, people!” I don’t know if anything will sufficiently get that message through, but it’s understandable that they want to try, and painting Stonehenge orange (reportedly in a non-toxic water-soluble paint that will wash away in the rain) seems like a somewhat effective way to get the attention of the news media.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Climate change, the article literally only uses that term… it’s quite a simple but very important distinction.

              It’s climate change since it causes extremes at both ends.

              Your ignorance isn’t an excuse.

              • kbal@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Yes, the phenomenom under discussion is climate change. Specifically, it’s that change which is a result of the anthropogenic net radiative forcing that increasingly puts more energy into the global climate system, making it less predictable, more dangerous in various ways, and generally warmer, a.k.a. “global warming.”

                It’s not a religion. Correct spelling of the magic incantations does not matter. Calling it global warming, like Al Gore did, in casual conversation is fine.

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  and generally warmer, a.k.a. “global warming.”

                  Incorrect, it also make colder temperatures colder, it’s not “generally”, one way or the other.

                  See, the wrong shit IS STILL being perpetuated, and the wrong term only exacerbates it. Case in point, your ignorant comment that explains it wrong lmfao.

                  Calling it global warming just shows your ignorance to the issue and your explanation proves it, it’s causes extremes at both ends, not “generally warming” like your ignorant ass is claiming lmfao.

                  Edit, I see people still love to eat and perpetuate propaganda eh? Correct people incorrectly and call it “warming” lmfao. All shows is your ignorance and how asinine you are, and it’s why it works, the public does the work for them… fucking yeesh.

      • warm@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        While it’s not damaged and will just wash off in the rain, they shouldn’t be doing this to irrelevant monuments. It’s getting nobody on your side.

          • warm@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            5 months ago

            Stonehenge is a monument built thousands of years ago, way before humans started mass polluting the Earth, how is it relevant to climate change?

            • illi@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Oh, I completely misunderstood your comment. Thought you were saying Stonehenge is irrelevant just in general which would be crazy to me

            • kbal@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              5 months ago

              It’s relevant to climate change in that it was recently used by Just Stop Oil activists to draw attention to their cause. I guess one could also say that the sudden violent transformation of ancient stones that have stood largely unchanged for thousands of years is symbolically appropriate.