Skip Navigation

Stonehenge sprayed with orange powder paint by Just Stop Oil activists

www.theguardian.com Stonehenge sprayed with orange powder paint by Just Stop Oil activists

Two people arrested, say police, while Rishi Sunak’s comments on protest prompt response from Labour donor

Stonehenge sprayed with orange powder paint by Just Stop Oil activists

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

159

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
159 comments
  • Oh I see we are at the "this generation is lazy" level of discussion. Have a nice day.

    • I'd say spraying colored powder on archeological sites and art galleries instead of getting involved in civic action to enact societal and economic change counts as lazy, yes.

      • I mean how do you know that this "instead of" is factual and isn't in reality a "additionally to"?

        • 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.

          • 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.

            • 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.

              • 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.

                • 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.

                  • 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.

                    • 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.

                      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.

                      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.

                      So no you didn’t show that. And even if 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.

                      I just pointed you to their website. The proof is in the pudding, and I'm not going to try to prove a negative.

                      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.

                      If the protest accomplishes their goals, then why separate them? Why have a separate organization at all? What's the point of that?

                      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.

                      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.

                      • 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've viewed 159 comments.