this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
0 points (50.0% liked)

World News

39380 readers
2604 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If you ever wanted to read about fake druids vs. environmental activists, now's your chance.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I don't know why they wouldn't block the entrance to an oil refinery. Some people would be unhappy about this especially the people that work there. But the general public could understand, who knows it could possibly slow production for a few days.

[–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

They have. Compared to this, it got barely any news coverage.

That is why they do this. Their only goal is attention, and they do that quite well.

The way they seem to operate is quite smart, actually:

  • Their stunts get a lot of press and bring climate change to the forefront of people's minds, frequently.

  • They're not a political party, so pissing voters off isn't a problem. They can afford to be unpopular to further the cause.

  • Those who already care about the climate won't change that based on a small group they dislike.

  • Those who call them "terrorists" are people who call anything short of licking oil company boot "eco-terrorism". They were never going to be convinced to care whatever the group does. Probably read the Daily Mail.

  • Those who are apathetic about the climate are still going to be apathetic, with a bit of rage towards this group as with the others, but again, ultimately that doesn't matter as they still won't change anything based on a single group.

  • A small handful of people will be inspired by them and their constant reminders of climate crisis, and be motivated to push for change.

The last bullet seems to be the target audience of the group. And they're the ones who will actually do anything.

[–] breden@reddthat.com -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What cause are they furthering though?

[–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 months ago

Inspiring people to act against climate change.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They silence a lot of people fighting for climate change by making it harder for everyone to discuss this. They make it much harder every time they pull one of these stunts. Its not smart unless you're talking about the oil industry execs funding them

[–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

"Silence"? How?

They don't make it harder to discuss climate change. People don't just go "a small group I hate cares about climate change so now I don't care". And if they do, well, they never actually cared about the climate. They cared about looking good and were never going to help with anything.

And stop with the conspiracy that they're funded by oil executives. The organisation of the granddaughter of an oil billionaire (who is dead) funds 2% of them. Because, children and grandchildren, believe it or not, can disagree with their elders.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

People don’t just go “a small group I hate cares about climate change so now I don’t care”.

No they don’t, but if I want to talk about the same cause to try to change people’s minds, instead I have to explain away a bunch of extremists and try to get them to take the cause seriously despite those extremists

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It's 100% not a conspiracy and you can go back to find many climate organizations have been infiltrated by agent provocateurs since the 70s. The FBI sent a guy in had a kid and pulled him out leaving an entire family. Industries have lots of leaked documents showing their support for these groups because they're so unpalatable to the average person.

These groups behavior often make it harder. It distracts from the fight and puts a giant clown hat on the whole issue. People will argue "it's not permanent damage" without realizing the point that underlies that. This is about image. Its not about actual effect. Image is valuable and these people think that damaging the image somehow is the key to action because it gets people talking. Its not the 70s anymore everyone knows. We need these groups to be more self aware and create civil action to get people on board instead of making it unpalatable. Or just stop and give room for groups or drive positive change.

[–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

many climate organizations have been infiltrated

Ok but:

  1. you're talking about the US, JSO is UK based

  2. It is a conspiracy theory because you have no hard evidence that JSO is infiltrated and having it's strings pulled by big oil like you claim

It distracts from the fight

No I'd actually argue it brings the fight to the forefront of people's minds, specifically the people who are actually inclined to do something. Those who do nothing but complain about climate activism were never going to do anything useful and so their thoughts on the methods are frankly irrelevant since the methods work for those who actually want to act.

We need these groups to be more self aware and create civil action to get people on board instead of making it unpalatable.

They've blockaded oil terminals and vandalised terrible offenders driving climate change, and still do. It was nowhere near as effective as their publicity stunts, which get people talking. They just ended up getting whisked away by police and largely ignored by the news. Pointless.

Whether you like it or not, the sort of quiet, non-inconvenient activism you seem to be proposing has shown itself to be useless.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

Their only goal is attention

This is not scammy advertising where “any attention is good attention”. This is an important cause where we need to build support

They can afford to be unpopular to further the cause.

Sure, no donations, no popular support, they can just be marginalized and ignored as a bunch of extremists. Everyone cheers when the cops cart them off to jail. Yay for attention though

Those who are apathetic about the climate are still going to be apathetic, with a bit of rage

This is where they’re wrong, and where I’m especially frustrated when it’s a cause I agree with. All those middle ground or non-active people who could be wooed as supporters, will now dismiss the cause as a bunch of annoying kooks. Nobody caused change by driving away potential supporters