Not a fan. I totally understand the need for climate protests, we're way too slow. And I also het that you're not gonna get headlines with a small protest somewhere. But why not disrupt things that are actually polluting, instead of throwing soup or paint at works of art. You'll also make enemies by blocking a major road or something, but at least it makes some sense.
At least someone is doing something. The governments are way to slow imho.
Also, there is literally no harm done. So everybody hyperventilating in the comments should maybe calm down a little.
Yeah, actively giving talking points to right wing climate policy opponents and alienating the people that support their cause. That sure is something.
If you support the cause you would understand no harm was done, and media attention was generated, as planned. If you want to have a excuse for your inaction you bitch on the internet about it.
No harm was done to the stonehenge. No harm was done to the cause to stop climatechange. These actions get people talking about climate change, that is the plan and it was a succes.
There are many different types of action that can be taken. Some people write letters, other consume less, etc. In the end they all work towards the same goal. But they require action. If you are not interested in changing the world and yourself for the better, no one can convince you. But if you want to create change, you will and you can. And then you will do so no matter what other people may think or do.
Negative reactions. I don't know anyone who identifies with these movements and actions, on the contrary. As someone who's trying to convince relatives to eat and act more sustainably, I feel it's an uphill battle because they don't want to side with these actions.
You're not being an activist, just an asshole and not just to the people you want to be an asshole to
Most activist organizations tend to do things that perpetuate themselves instead of trying to deal with the problem they are claiming to solve. That includes terrorist organisations too.
Now that's just BS, sorry. Not a single person who was on the fence of doing something against climate change will go "oh well but I didn't like the method of those protesters, now I won't do it".
The people who are constantly looking for excuses to do literally nothing are lost to climate action anyway. Every meaningful progress will have to be won against those people, not with them. If even slight inconveniences are too much to ask from them sure, they will shout and cry how this protest is the reason, but let's be honest: They were never going to be a part of the solution anyway.
It's not BS it's reality. Especially for older generations, but not only, the way other people perceive them and their beliefs is important. If by supporting vegetarianism, climate advocacy, et. al they will be perceived as supporting these types of actions they won't do it. Is it stupid? Absolutely, but it's reality and a demographic of people you won't be getting for your cause and for climate we can't afford to lose credibility and supporters.
With this lack of nuance and understanding is how the left loses voters to the far right, and how activists lose supporters they can't afford to lose
The BS part is that they would have done anything helpful to the cause without the protest.
This is just another excuse. "People think I support throwing starch at Stonehenge" is not a reason to vote conservative and eat red meat at every meal.
We are trying to make people change the way they live and act, of course most of them will find any excuse to not do it. The "any attention is good" way of doing things is a far right tactic and shouldn't be used. It gives them the perfect excuse to not align with the beliefs and just maintain their ways.
That's not the tactic here at all. The people who are outraged aren't important. They will never participate meaningfully. Those people are and forever will be part of the problem. So it doesn't matter if they're angry now. This isn't about them.
Gaining momentum within the movement, keep public attention high, pressure politicians to public statements, legitimise other forms of protests, encourage public debate, inspire involvement of people who generally support them, to name a few.
On the other hand there isn't a single form of protest that wouldn't be either ignored or used as an excuse for inactivity by the people you claim to want to reach. Or could you name even a single example that would make them actually do something?
There it is. You want attention no matter if it's positive or not. Which type of support do you expect to gather by vandalising monuments? Encourage public debate by vandalising monuments?
Normal protests, even if "angrier" would be better than this. Earn peoples' trust and respect
Public attention to the matter of climate change. Sorry that I didn't spell it out for you.
Care to answer my question though? Because if you have not a single idea what form of protest could actually sway the people you claim to want to reach, we can just as well continue with the cornstarch.
Public attention to the matter of climate change. Sorry that I didn't spell it out for you.
Yes I got that but my point still stands, and you're still contradicting yourself.
Care to answer my question though? Because if you have not a single idea what form of protest could actually sway the people you claim to want to reach, we can just as well continue with the cornstarch
So the people who go "I would have done something, but now that they painted stonehenge I won't" will suddenly change their way when they see "normal protest" as you call them?
Suuuure. Keep telling yourself that. You're not sounding ridiculous at all.
Spraying paint is the better kind of protest to get people to talk about the issues. Much better than actually making themselves an enemy by blocking cars
They're not doing anything except virtue signalling.
What did you do during the climate crisis, grandpa? Did you canvass politicians? Did you install solar panels? Did you vote for the green party? Did you blockade drilling sites? Did you run for Parliament?
No Jimmy I sprayed paint on some old rocks
May as well stay at home and stab yourself in the head with a fork until you black out.
Well so far I've painted all the rocks in my garden neon yellow, so I've done about the same as those twats.
Oh, and also all the things I mentioned in my previous post (except run for Parliament), so there is that.
Doesn't actually take that much fucking effort. I can't guarantee that my actions will have definite results, but what I can say for sure is that at least I'm doing things that are actually targeted at fixing the problem and not just getting attention so that a bunch of useless wankers can feel self-righteous.
Certainly my solar panels will contribute something at least.
I'm all for peaceful environmental protesting, but destruction of property and historic monuments/items only makes your movement look worse. News will spin it as the protesters being vandals and go about their day. Most people won't think beyond that and will probably associate environmental activism with negative things such as vandalism or whatever else their favorite news calls what they're doing.
There's no need for the media to spin anything, the protestors committed vandalism and, unless they are protesting the existence of prehistoric monuments, they did a really shitty job of even calling attention to their cause.
It's a realy interesting tightrope. If you just stand in a field holdong signs your don't really get media attention. in order to get that attention you must do something that grinds peoples' gears enough to have media outlets pay attention to them. But that kind of action needs to skirt the vandalism vector, as otherwise people would be like 'they removed the unimportant turnip of Weddelsex, but I dont care' on the other hand You also cannot be too radical, as it will hurt your cause.
It would be great if enviromentalists had a voice that could be audible over the control over media that is enacted by big companies (murdoch f.i.), but theres little big money in the message of climate awareness, and it's a message most people dont't reallt want to hear.
So... You take aim at objects that are deemed worthwhile and important for the people you wish to reach and try to allign your message with the importance of those ancient and important works.
It's a losing battle as people choose comfort over complicated issues (seemingly) out of their control as annoyance, furthermore being made co-defendant in the case of climate destruction is rather jarring, therefore people are shy to pick up on them, as why should the burden be on them?
So theres no way to positively make your message. Therefore any demonstration is jarring per se, even if peaceful it needs to be at least known, and ironicaaly the best way to do that is to do something outrageaus, as our reptile brain goes very hard on that.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just the style of writing in this article gives away a lot:
The self-professed aims of these organisations and their millionaire backers are to bypass politics and implement radical measures upon the world’s population without democratic consultation.
the referenced piece here is written by a Breitbart editor by the way.
Anyway, so Just Stop Oil are going to bypass the world‘s democratic order? Yeah? By demanding them to follow through with their climate pledges?
Oh man.
Also, it is no news, that the Getty heir is contributing to various funds, so what. I am a landlord and support Extinction Rebellion, does that make their actions inauthentic?
The reality is that the UK is using pretty straight forward laws to prevent this kind of protest, they don‘t need some kind of internationalist cabal to do that for them.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
Radical
a: very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b: favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c: associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs
They said burning down an oil plant is radical. Are you thinking of the slang definition of radical? The only call to action is the ruffling of feathers.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It was the Bronze and Iron age, even the people who swore they didn't do human sacrifice had sneaky backdoor rituals that played out human sacrifice, cough cough Romans cough cough
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
People will use this to galvanize efforts against climate action, and it will work. If you want to seriously do something, go after the people causing the crisis.
It will inspire people to take more drastic action, and highlight the urgency of the cause in a way that targets those who are causing it. It's also more likely to create sympathy, since the ones causing the problem are the ones being punished for it.
Policy is what drives the climate crisis, and policy is primarily controlled by the rich and powerful, especially in countries like the US where corporate lobbying reigns supreme. You could argue that it's ultimately capitalist incentives that create this paradigm, but I would say that those incentives are upheld by the same powerful individuals who benefit from them.
tl;dr, the climate crisis is caused by certain individuals.
the whole "the climate crisis isn't the fault of people" is an excuse for the religious and rich and stupid to continue with business as usual until the environment collapses and we are all dead
reasoning with them is like trying to de-program a cult member (the religious), get a drug addict to give up drugs (the rich and their avarice), or teach a windows user to learn linux (the stupid and learning new things that make sense)
the intelligent people need to stop trying to reason with these three tar pit groups and force them to adhere to our will
but the reality is that this should have happened 50 to 100 years ago and it's probably too late. we're sort of of at the "is it better to be in the blast zne or slightly outside the blast zne" phase of environmental collapse. the problem is mostly religion, which has doomed us.
It's particularly funny because Stonehenge is almost entirely a reconstruction and not a partially destructive one at that. Iirc there are even legit photos of the henge stones in piles on the ground.
Ed: you can down vote but it's true, it's been continually knocked down and rebuilt throughout its history.
Activists (try to) do that as well. But it's much harder to get close to a rich person or their property, than it is to do something in public spaces. They, too, have to see what they can do with their limited resources.
Next, the media coverage is very unequal, as well as reader's interest. You are much more likely to click on an article covering a potentially outrageous action, than you are to read about something which does not bother anyone. Although you can rest assured, these things are tried and done frequently.
So naturally, to the uninvolved reader, it may seem as if activists don't do anything but stupid stunts. And naturally, each outsider seems to think they have a much better grasp of strategy and what actions might make sense than the people who are actually involved in these things.
Of course, a particular action can still be silly. I just want to draw attention to biases at play, in general.
And if you really have a much better idea how to do something about the climate crisis, then go ahead and shine as an example. Not only would you author an actually impactful action (which in itself should be reason enough), you could also show all these rookie activists how to get things done. If your example is convincing, you should see less media coverage about inferior actions.
Oh no! The history that we could have all have enjoyed in the future (if we weren't all about to die due to environmental collapse) has been slightly marred!
They're pretending to fund these groups because they care about the environment but it's obvious all they're doing is paying radicals to create hate for environmental groups.
Or you fell for the propaganda that's discrediting them.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter. Far too little is being done against climate change, on every level - socially, politically, economically, individually. One would have to wonder what the fuck is happening if we didn't have some form of protest. They are necessarily going to become more extreme as time goes by, and they will have every right to do so.
Climate change is being talked every single goddamn day. It's been a constant thing people talk for a long while. Sometimes it's overshadowed by other topics but the talk has never stopped. This shit isn't some silenced issue. The issue isn't how much people are talking but how little people are doing.
Look at the raging reactions in the comments to a little bit of starch. If they would actually destroy something, let alone hurt someone, they'd be framed as terrorists and prosecuted in a heartbeat.
Rebecca Watson has an interesting video on this. The way things are going right now, people in 50 years will look back and say activists were the only people trying something, while most of us just waited for the shit to hit the fan.
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.
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.
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…..
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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
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.
Yes, that's what I said. We generally say climate change now because people have idiotic takes like yours and (puzzlingly) don't appear to understand that global warming means warming of the globe.
We had to change the language used because people like you can't parse basic English or apply the smallest amount of thought to the phrase.
Global warming isn't an incorrect term in the slightest. It describes the warming of the globe, which is exactly what's happening.
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.
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.
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.
The earth is getting warmer, which brings chaos to a complex system. The result is extreme weather, sometimes cold and wet. But it is getting warmer on a global scale. In fact, it was never as hot in human history as as it is right now in 2024.
The term global warming is used a political dog whistle, it was used by politicians to further a political agenda. See marijuana, crack, hippies, etc. and now the general public is doing their work by perpetuating the wrong term, to make things seem not as bad.
Marijuana is actually cannabis, and anyone who incorrectly uses the term can be easily seen for their bias or their lack of education on the subject.
It’s okay to be incorrect, the term was outdated decades ago, but continue to use it wrong and do their political work for free. This shit really went deep with these generations didn’t it…? Yeesh.
Doesn't matter. It's a protected site and there's protected species living on the stones. So they should be prosecuted on two counts at least. It's illegal. If I'd have shot a protester for being a cunt I'd be prosecuted.
A monument built thousands and thousands of years ago has no correlation to current day pollution/climate change. I think you missed the context. They should be targeting polluters or protectors of polluters, not an innocent heritage site.
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.
I know "there is no bad press" but more people will think "fuck those guys" than "maybe environment does need saving" upon reading these news.
Also just because they were responsible about their dick move doesn't mean everybody will be. Or something happens that causes long term damage by accident.
I care for environment greatly but I'd slap these people as long as I could lift my hands and then some.
