The Stonehenge stunt was an ineffective attention grab. Vandalizing the private jets was an effective attention grab.
Like if some Just Stop Oil activist took a shit in the middle of a busy NY street that would get them a lot of attention, but it wouldn’t be even remotely positive or effective in any way.
They should stick to vandalizing the property of the biggest culprits of climate change. I and most other leftists can get behind that, and it actually puts a spotlight on the people causing the problem. The Stonehenge stunt just comes off as a petty attack on the public who has little to no say on climate issues.
I didn’t hear about the vandalizing of private jets until people were complaining about stone henge. Considering they did not damage stone henge in any way this does seem like a much more effective way of bringing attention to the issue.
I didn’t hear about the vandalizing of private jets until people were complaining about stone henge.
It’d be a bit odd if you had heard about the jets before the Stonehenge stunt since they vandalized the jets one day after Stonehenge. I heard about each of them on the day they happened as I was listening to the news.
this does seem like a much more effective way of bringing attention to the issue.
Even most leftists didn’t support the Stonehenge stunt while the majority of comments and posts I’ve seen on the vandalism of the jets was positive. The majority of the public has grievances towards private jets, their pollution and who’s using them, and how they should be taxed. You’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks Stonehenge is bad or that vandalizing it is good.
This only serves to make them and other climate activists look like petty fools, besides creating infighting on the left. Nearly everyone already knows about climate change and has an opinion on it, and the Stonehenge stunt does nothing to move the public to our side or make Just Stop Oil look good.
What makes the jets effective but stone henge not?
Seriously what effects have the jetshave vs stone henge? Did it rally a bunch of people to the cause? Did it make the fossil field companies rethink their ways? Convince the MPs to stop oil investment? Make the owners of those jets not want to fly them?
I’ll say the jets were effective in that I don’t like the jets while I am primed to try to physically stop you from doing the other thing if you try it in front of me. And I already agree with the underlying point already, so imagine how the normies that don’t think about this at all feel.
“Ah, a cartoonish self-parody of activists defacing a monument I’ve spent my entire life feeling a sense of kinship with, I feel compelled to rethink my stance on this dry, complex political issue”. That’s a bold pitch for a PR stunt.
No, but I, nor anyone else claimed they were going to.
The other commentor said the jet protests were effective whereas stonehenge was not. So I’m just asking what effect it had? Because at least the Stonehenge protest was big news, which was the whole point of the protest.
Oh, is it? Man, this is such a Rorschach test of a thread.
Is the point of a protest to be in the news? I guess the clout economy has rotten our brains after all.
I mean, yeah, you can make news by acting like an idiot, in that the people that oppose your cause will thoroughly cover it. It’s not hard to be in the news with a protest, as long as you don’t care why you’re news. Stage a mass murder of puppies to protest against the lack of gun control and I guarantee you’ll get a spot in Fox News every day for a year, very much accompanied of a pro-gun lobbyist commenting the footage.
That may be the core of the confusion here. I’m saying that turning climate change activism into the puppy murder cause is not an effective way to curb climate change. I’m saying that feeling powerless doesn’t make it any more effective at curbing climate change just because it gets news coverage.
It’s not making anybody aware of the issue who already isn’t, because everybody is already aware of the issue. It’s not explaining anything about the issue to anybody, because all we’re talking about here is the stupid stunt. It doesn’t convince anybody who was neutral or hostile to the cause because they came off as complete idiots at best, malevolent assholes at worst.
So I guess my answer to your question is that even if the jet thing did nothing it still was more effective than this. Because it’s not about being in the news, it’s about making effective action more likely to happen.
I think when you get to the point where you’re comparing mass murdering puppies to spraying corn starch on a rock then you’re not really arguing in good faith anymore
Nah, when you deface a one-of-a-kind prehistoric monument that not only is of genuine historical relevance and recognizable worldwide but also a key cultural touchstone with deep identitarian components for a whole country you are deep into Cruella territory. In good faith. Genuinely. I’m not even English and I am pissed. You don’t even get the usual excuses about bourgeois art these idiots have used for other stunts like these.
This is literally supervillain stuff. It’s the stuff they put in Superman movies to show he’s gone bad. In the zeitgeist of normal humanity it’s shorthand for “these are the bad guys”, right alongside suspiciously spotted fur coats and shooting your minions for failing to catch somebody.
How anybody wouldn’t get this makes me not only question their ability to socially engineer a planetary revolution of the ways we generate power and consume goods, but the ability to function as an adult and put their pants on in the morning. If I hired a PR consultant to advertise “climate action” and they proposed this I wouldn’t just fire them, I’d sue them for trying to sabotage me. It’s incredibly stupid. Seriously. Genuinely. As somebody who wants these people to actually succeed.
Yeah, seems about right.
They had the right idea when they spray painted those private jets. IDK what they were thinking with the Stonehenge stunt.
Seemed to grab your attention.
The Stonehenge stunt was an ineffective attention grab. Vandalizing the private jets was an effective attention grab.
Like if some Just Stop Oil activist took a shit in the middle of a busy NY street that would get them a lot of attention, but it wouldn’t be even remotely positive or effective in any way.
They should stick to vandalizing the property of the biggest culprits of climate change. I and most other leftists can get behind that, and it actually puts a spotlight on the people causing the problem. The Stonehenge stunt just comes off as a petty attack on the public who has little to no say on climate issues.
I didn’t hear about the vandalizing of private jets until people were complaining about stone henge. Considering they did not damage stone henge in any way this does seem like a much more effective way of bringing attention to the issue.
It’d be a bit odd if you had heard about the jets before the Stonehenge stunt since they vandalized the jets one day after Stonehenge. I heard about each of them on the day they happened as I was listening to the news.
Even most leftists didn’t support the Stonehenge stunt while the majority of comments and posts I’ve seen on the vandalism of the jets was positive. The majority of the public has grievances towards private jets, their pollution and who’s using them, and how they should be taxed. You’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks Stonehenge is bad or that vandalizing it is good.
This only serves to make them and other climate activists look like petty fools, besides creating infighting on the left. Nearly everyone already knows about climate change and has an opinion on it, and the Stonehenge stunt does nothing to move the public to our side or make Just Stop Oil look good.
What makes the jets effective but stone henge not?
Seriously what effects have the jetshave vs stone henge? Did it rally a bunch of people to the cause? Did it make the fossil field companies rethink their ways? Convince the MPs to stop oil investment? Make the owners of those jets not want to fly them?
Did the other thing achieve any of that?
I’ll say the jets were effective in that I don’t like the jets while I am primed to try to physically stop you from doing the other thing if you try it in front of me. And I already agree with the underlying point already, so imagine how the normies that don’t think about this at all feel.
“Ah, a cartoonish self-parody of activists defacing a monument I’ve spent my entire life feeling a sense of kinship with, I feel compelled to rethink my stance on this dry, complex political issue”. That’s a bold pitch for a PR stunt.
No, but I, nor anyone else claimed they were going to.
The other commentor said the jet protests were effective whereas stonehenge was not. So I’m just asking what effect it had? Because at least the Stonehenge protest was big news, which was the whole point of the protest.
Oh, is it? Man, this is such a Rorschach test of a thread.
Is the point of a protest to be in the news? I guess the clout economy has rotten our brains after all.
I mean, yeah, you can make news by acting like an idiot, in that the people that oppose your cause will thoroughly cover it. It’s not hard to be in the news with a protest, as long as you don’t care why you’re news. Stage a mass murder of puppies to protest against the lack of gun control and I guarantee you’ll get a spot in Fox News every day for a year, very much accompanied of a pro-gun lobbyist commenting the footage.
That may be the core of the confusion here. I’m saying that turning climate change activism into the puppy murder cause is not an effective way to curb climate change. I’m saying that feeling powerless doesn’t make it any more effective at curbing climate change just because it gets news coverage.
It’s not making anybody aware of the issue who already isn’t, because everybody is already aware of the issue. It’s not explaining anything about the issue to anybody, because all we’re talking about here is the stupid stunt. It doesn’t convince anybody who was neutral or hostile to the cause because they came off as complete idiots at best, malevolent assholes at worst.
So I guess my answer to your question is that even if the jet thing did nothing it still was more effective than this. Because it’s not about being in the news, it’s about making effective action more likely to happen.
I think when you get to the point where you’re comparing mass murdering puppies to spraying corn starch on a rock then you’re not really arguing in good faith anymore
Nah, when you deface a one-of-a-kind prehistoric monument that not only is of genuine historical relevance and recognizable worldwide but also a key cultural touchstone with deep identitarian components for a whole country you are deep into Cruella territory. In good faith. Genuinely. I’m not even English and I am pissed. You don’t even get the usual excuses about bourgeois art these idiots have used for other stunts like these.
This is literally supervillain stuff. It’s the stuff they put in Superman movies to show he’s gone bad. In the zeitgeist of normal humanity it’s shorthand for “these are the bad guys”, right alongside suspiciously spotted fur coats and shooting your minions for failing to catch somebody.
How anybody wouldn’t get this makes me not only question their ability to socially engineer a planetary revolution of the ways we generate power and consume goods, but the ability to function as an adult and put their pants on in the morning. If I hired a PR consultant to advertise “climate action” and they proposed this I wouldn’t just fire them, I’d sue them for trying to sabotage me. It’s incredibly stupid. Seriously. Genuinely. As somebody who wants these people to actually succeed.
I wouldn’t put it past Big Oil to infiltrate climate activist groups to make them appear unlikable. Same with throwing paint on a painting.