feddit.org

0 points

5 months ago

I mean how do you know that this “instead of” is factual and isn’t in reality a “additionally to”?

report

[ - ]

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

0 points

5 months ago

Their website. It’s a string of performative, attention-seeking destruction, peppered with the rare “letter to party leaders” or “disrupted” public event.

It’s clear as day.

report

[ - ]

0 points

5 months ago

It’s possible to be a part of multiple organisations. Just because someone is part of JSO that doesn’t mean they can’t also be active in other groups. Highly motivated people like these tend to do that. It also makes sense to not lump these efforts under one name so that the public messaging doesn’t get muddied.

report

[ - ]

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

0 points

5 months ago

The number of people described in those news articles that have been arrested, imprisoned, or spent months in court fighting charges, tells me they’re spending more time in the judicial system than participating with other civic groups. The two protestors who painted Stonehenge are currently behind bars, so I’d say that cuts into their grassroots organizing time, wouldn’t you?

It also makes sense to not lump these efforts under one name so that the public messaging doesn’t get muddied.

The public messaging is that people painted Stonehenge. I’d say the clarity of their messaging is exactly the topic currently up for debate.

report

[ - ]

0 points

5 months ago

I won’t speculate on how much energy they are able to put into other efforts because I don’t have any actual experience with the judicial system. A few days behind bars are not enough to stop one from participating though.

The public messaging is that people painted Stonehenge. I’d say the clarity of their messaging is exactly the topic currently up for debate.

Now imagine this was a group that also engages in constructive participation. Suddenly the messaging of that group would be very messy, full of misunderstandings. Instead of this they do activism that will not be favourable in the public opinion under that specific organisation where it won’t hurt the constructive efforts.

report

[ - ]

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

0 points

5 months ago

I won’t speculate on how much energy they are able to put into other efforts because I don’t have any actual experience with the judicial system. A few days behind bars are not enough to stop one from participating though.

If “a few days” is all you think we’re talking about, you need to read the news releases on their website more closely…

Now imagine this was a group that also engages in constructive participation.

They don’t. I just showed that they don’t, and that’s coming from someone who does constructive environmental engagement both at the grassroots and governmental level. My wife and I have dedicated our entire lives to environmental protection, and what these dipshits are doing is not constructive and makes the rest of us look like morons.

Suddenly the messaging of that group would be very messy, full of misunderstandings. Instead of this they do activism that will not be favourable in the public opinion under that specific organisation where it won’t hurt the constructive efforts.

They’re using a front group because they know it will run afoul of public opinion and won’t be constructive??? Do you hear yourself right now? I’m telling you that you’re making a very convincing argument about why these tactics are such a waste of oxygen. They “stop us from talking about anything else” and “hurt the constructive efforts” because they’re unpopular. They’re accomplishing nothing except pissing people off and attracting attention away from more constructive endeavors. Surely you see that you’re supporting my argument.

report

[ - ]

0 points

5 months ago

If “a few days” is all you think we’re talking about, you need to read the news releases on their website more closely…

All I see are things that will cost them money. Spraying paint somewhere wouldn’t result in a lot of jailtime. If that’s the case in the UK well that’s weird.

They don’t. I just showed that they don’t, and that’s coming from someone who does constructive environmental engagement both at the grassroots and governmental level. My wife and I have dedicated our entire lives to environmental protection, and what these dipshits are doing is not constructive and makes the rest of us look like morons.

So no you didn’t show that. And while I want to thank you for your engagement, that doesn’t give you the right to tell everyone else how they are supposed to engage themselves. You are entitled to your opinion but that isn’t a definitive fact.

They’re using a front group because they know it will run afoul of public opinion and won’t be constructive??? Do you hear yourself right now? I’m telling you that you’re making a very convincing argument about why these tactics are such a waste of oxygen. They “stop us from talking about anything else” and “hurt the constructive efforts” because they’re unpopular"

It’s not a front. It’s just possible to engage in different forms of activism and if those differ in style it makes sense to separate them into multiple organisations.

They’re accomplishing nothing except pissing people off and attracting attention away from more constructive endeavors. Surely you see that you’re supporting my argument.

There is a common misconception that activism needs to please people to be valid or effective. I think we just differ in opinion on this. Which is fine but we don’t need to waste time on arguing about this as it seems we are both pretty convinced of our respective stance on this.

report