If you ever wanted to read about fake druids vs. environmental activists, now’s your chance.
And time. You know, because time spent with other organizations is what we’re talking about here? It takes time to fight a criminal charge. Besides, we’re now nitpicking about how much time they’ll spend in jail, rather than you proving with any evidence that they’re doing anything more constructive than performative stunts. Rather than show actual good they’re doing, you’ve just supposed that they might be doing it, and challenged that I can’t prove that they don’t. I hope you see how ridiculous this is.
You and me are arguing a non-provable hypothetical. Yes time they spend in jail is time they aren’t doing anything productive. That doesn’t mean they don’t do anything productive in their time they do not spend in jail. Also: The repressions they face as a consequence of their activism is part of the activism in my book.
Every second we spend on this stupid conversation is a second that proves the effect of the protest is to make the stunt the subject of the conversation, rather than the climate.
I’ll argue that without that stunt we’d be talking about something different entirely likely unrelated to the climate crisis. Which would be even less helpful.
If the protest accomplishes their goals, then why separate them? Why have a separate organization at all? What’s the point of that?
As I have explained already: it’s about communicating to the public. Doing things under a certain name helps the public associate the current actions with past actions under the same name. If you do two vastly different things it helps to separate those by name too, otherwise it can get confusing for people that are not interacting with your group often enough.
No, activism doesn’t need to please people, it needs to be targeted to inconvenience the right people.
If I show up at your home first thing in the morning and pour colored powder on the car you use to get to work, and I tell you “I’m helping spread the word about starvation in Africa”, you’re going to wash the powder off and then yell at me for being a fucking idiot and taking it out on you. You’re not going to stop what you’re doing and send a donation to feed children in Africa because I vandalized your car.
That’s quite the strawman you’ve put up here. I’m not advocating for bothering random people at their home and that’s not what JSO is doing. As far as I can tell they are targeting people of public interest, big events, and popular public places. Which is the “right” people because the climate crisis is about all of us. We all are contributing to it be it daily choices or our choices while casting our democratic votes.
You and me are arguing a non-provable hypothetical. Yes time they spend in jail is time they aren’t doing anything productive. That doesn’t mean they don’t do anything productive in their time they do not spend in jail. Also: The repressions they face as a consequence of their activism is part of the activism in my book.
Yes. We’re arguing in circles because the protestors are the story, climate change isn’t.
I’ll argue that without that stunt we’d be talking about something different entirely likely unrelated to the climate crisis. Which would be even less helpful.
I’d argue that we’re still not arguing about the climate crisis. Not a single person in this thread has said a single word about climate change or how to solve it. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.
As I have explained already: it’s about communicating to the public. Doing things under a certain name helps the public associate the current actions with past actions under the same name. If you do two vastly different things it helps to separate those by name too, otherwise it can get confusing for people that are not interacting with your group often enough.
Why do you not want these actions associated with the other group?
Furthermore, you don’t think painting a fucking rock is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change, but having one interest group perform varying kinds of direct activism and grassroots organizing is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change?
That’s quite the strawman you’ve put up here.
It’s a hypothetical, not a strawman, which should have been obvious when the sentence began with “if”.
I’m not advocating for bothering random people at their home and that’s not what JSO is doing. As far as I can tell they are targeting people of public interest, big events, and popular public places. Which is the “right” people because the climate crisis is about all of us. We all are contributing to it be it daily choices or our choices while casting our democratic votes.
You’re advocating for bothering random people at a tourist attraction, and you’re doing it in a way that a) distracts from talking about actual climate change, b) leaves them virtually NO information about how to address climate change, and c) is potentially affecting people who already do what they can to address climate change. See how this entire thread has been about painting rocks, instead of daily choices we make that contribute to or affect climate change???
The fact that we are talking about this and not about climate change is also partly your decision. You are free at any point to disengage this thread and focus your energy on more productive things. The fact that you’re not doing this is just one example of humans being humans and not always doing the best of all things. Me still arguing with you is of course another example.
Why do you not want these actions associated with the other group?
I can repeat this as often as you want: people want to engage in different kinds of activities under different names because the actions do not relate and the messaging becomes confusing. I can both disturb the operation of a pipeline and try to mobilize locals to support the building of a solar power plant. Doing both under the same name makes everything more complicated even if there is personal overlap. I really don’t get why you are so hung up on this.
Furthermore, you don’t think painting a fucking rock is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change, but having one interest group perform varying kinds of direct activism and grassroots organizing is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change?
I don’t exactly get the question here. I’m not saying any of those options is particularly confusing. I’m saying doing both under the same name might get confusing for people not intimately familiar with your group and their actions.
It’s a hypothetical, not a strawman, which should have been obvious when the sentence began with “if”.
The hypothetical that you are posing instead of what I’m actually arguing for. You then argue against that hypothetical instead of my actual points. That’s a classic example of a strawman.
You’re advocating for bothering random people at a tourist attraction,
Yes I’m advocating for bothering people in public. Where else would you bother people?
and you’re doing it in a way that a) distracts from talking about actual climate change,
That’s a choice the public is making. And again I think this is fine.
b) leaves them virtually NO information about how to address climate change,
That’s also fine. It’s not like there aren’t any publicly available sources on how to fight climate change. If the people are interested they can go talk to the many many local groups that engage in productive activities.
and c) is potentially affecting people who already do what they can to address climate change. See how this entire thread has been about painting rocks, instead of daily choices we make that contribute to or affect climate change???
This thread is a prime example of people like you who could be allies here and engage people who aren’t yet convinced that we need to take action, that instead take up a lot of time and energy to argue about the kind of protest.
The fact that we are talking about this and not about climate change is also partly your decision. You are free at any point to disengage this thread and focus your energy on more productive things. The fact that you’re not doing this is just one example of humans being humans and not always doing the best of all things. Me still arguing with you is of course another example.
No one in this thread or any other Lemmy thread about this situation is talking about climate change. Everyone is talking about paint on rocks.
I can repeat this as often as you want: people want to engage in different kinds of activities under different names because the actions do not relate and the messaging becomes confusing. I can both disturb the operation of a pipeline and try to mobilize locals to support the building of a solar power plant. Doing both under the same name makes everything more complicated even if there is personal overlap. I really don’t get why you are so hung up on this.
Because if you’re not embarassed or ashamed of the pipeline disturbance/damage, then you shouldn’t have a problem openly associating yourself with it. The fact that you’re trying to hard to suggest it’s prudent to distance oneself from a disruption/protest tells me that deep down you understand these things are perceived negatively and are therefore more likely to cause friction and disagreement than sympathy for a cause.
I don’t exactly get the question here. I’m not saying any of those options is particularly confusing. I’m saying doing both under the same name might get confusing for people not intimately familiar with your group and their actions.
And painting a rock is confusing to people who don’t understand what the paint or the rock have to do with climate change. Yet you’re her cheering for rock painting. Why are you worried about confusing the public in one instance but not worried about confusing the public in the other instance?
The hypothetical that you are posing instead of what I’m actually arguing for. You then argue against that hypothetical instead of my actual points. That’s a classic example of a strawman.
No, it’s a hypothetical that’s followed by a question mark. It’s also called a “thought exercise”. Nowhere did I attribute the argument to you in order to debunk it. You need to read the definition of strawman fallacy more carefully.
Yes I’m advocating for bothering people in public. Where else would you bother people?
You would bother people who aren’t already on your team and in a way that leads to a productive conversation, rather than in a way that’s completely detached from the cause and in a way that completely distracts from the issue.
That’s a choice the public is making. And again I think this is fine.
Also known as a shittily designed protest. If you set out to accomplish a goal and the public responds predictably in a way that doesn’t help you achieve that goal, you should probably reflect on the fact that your methods were shit.
That’s also fine. It’s not like there aren’t any publicly available sources on how to fight climate change. If the people are interested they can go talk to the many many local groups that engage in productive activities.
Ah, so now it’s enough to acknowledge that public resources exist and people can find it if they want? Because seconds ago you were cheering for people to paint rocks in a public place to keep people from talking about anything else. Seems you’re not quite sure what you believe or how you think it should be accomplished. So what is it? Should it be shoved into people’s faces so they can’t ignore it? Or should they be left to find their own resources?
This thread is a prime example of people like you who could be allies here and engage people who aren’t yet convinced that we need to take action, that instead take up a lot of time and energy to argue about the kind of protest.
I am an ally. That’s what you don’t understand and refuse to entertain as a possibility. I’m an environmental advocate both personally and professionally, and I’ve been working on climate change and environmental issues for over a decade. And even I’m telling you that painting a rock is stupid and counterproductive. The only people who give a shit and empathize with it are people who were already on your team.
