They silence a lot of people fighting for climate change by making it harder for everyone to discuss this. They make it much harder every time they pull one of these stunts. Its not smart unless you’re talking about the oil industry execs funding them
survivor basis on that. And really how much change do we have here? Aren’t we still fighting all the same issues for decades? Maybe time to face the truth
It’s not surivor bias. Unsuccessful protestors weren’t all killed.
And no, we’re not fighting all the same issues: gay rights, woman’s rights, workers rights, racial equality have all made huge strides over the years and protests have led those changes.
That’s the truth that you need to face.
Read up on the civil rights movement for a good example, or emancipation for women.
They don’t make it harder to discuss climate change. People don’t just go “a small group I hate cares about climate change so now I don’t care”. And if they do, well, they never actually cared about the climate. They cared about looking good and were never going to help with anything.
And stop with the conspiracy that they’re funded by oil executives. The organisation of the granddaughter of an oil billionaire (who is dead) funds 2% of them. Because, children and grandchildren, believe it or not, can disagree with their elders.
People don’t just go “a small group I hate cares about climate change so now I don’t care”.
No they don’t, but if I want to talk about the same cause to try to change people’s minds, instead I have to explain away a bunch of extremists and try to get them to take the cause seriously despite those extremists
It’s 100% not a conspiracy and you can go back to find many climate organizations have been infiltrated by agent provocateurs since the 70s. The FBI sent a guy in had a kid and pulled him out leaving an entire family. Industries have lots of leaked documents showing their support for these groups because they’re so unpalatable to the average person.
These groups behavior often make it harder. It distracts from the fight and puts a giant clown hat on the whole issue. People will argue “it’s not permanent damage” without realizing the point that underlies that. This is about image. Its not about actual effect. Image is valuable and these people think that damaging the image somehow is the key to action because it gets people talking. Its not the 70s anymore everyone knows. We need these groups to be more self aware and create civil action to get people on board instead of making it unpalatable. Or just stop and give room for groups or drive positive change.
It is a conspiracy theory because you have no hard evidence that JSO is infiltrated and having it’s strings pulled by big oil like you claim
It distracts from the fight
No I’d actually argue it brings the fight to the forefront of people’s minds, specifically the people who are actually inclined to do something. Those who do nothing but complain about climate activism were never going to do anything useful and so their thoughts on the methods are frankly irrelevant since the methods work for those who actually want to act.
We need these groups to be more self aware and create civil action to get people on board instead of making it unpalatable.
They’ve blockaded oil terminals and vandalised terrible offenders driving climate change, and still do. It was nowhere near as effective as their publicity stunts, which get people talking. They just ended up getting whisked away by police and largely ignored by the news. Pointless.
Whether you like it or not, the sort of quiet, non-inconvenient activism you seem to be proposing has shown itself to be useless.
Greenpeace, OWS, ELF, Activists at Standing rock and in Briton groups like CND (look up Mark Kennedy) have all been infiltrated and lead astray. But this group is somehow different? I call bullshit especially after seeing these groups piss off more and more people every time they make the news.
This doesn’t bring any of this to forefront of peoples minds. I’d argue it does the opposite of what you propose. It forces an association between the topic and people who are not appealing.
You should really evaluate what you’re saying here.
Those who do nothing but complain about climate activism were never going to do anything useful and so their thoughts on the methods are frankly irrelevant since the methods work for those who actually want to act.
This issue hinges entirely on getting voters to care. Yet, many groups and even you seem to dismiss them, saying “they don’t matter.” In reality, voters are the most crucial factor.
It makes sense that the idea of alienating the general public from climate action might be intentionally promoted by well-funded and organized entities. These entities have the resources to influence groups, and we’ve seen this pattern in many movements since the beginning. Their goal is likely to disrupt and weaken the effectiveness of climate action initiatives.
This doesn’t bring any of this to forefront of peoples minds.
If they didn’t make headlines a lot less people would be talking about climate change at this moment.
This issue hinges entirely on getting voters to care. Yet, many groups and even you seem to dismiss them, saying “they don’t matter.” In reality, voters are the most crucial factor.
As I said earlier with examples for each category of people, almost everyone in this issue is not going to be influenced to change their opinion on a massive topic like climate change because of a small annoying group. Except those who’ll be spurred onto direct action.
And in that quote I was referring to those who complain about any climate activism (see the comments on blocked oil refineries and painted jets YouTube videos). Not voters overall.
It makes sense that the idea of alienating the general public from climate action might be intentionally promoted by well-funded and organized entities.
This is a potential issue but as I’ve already said, I think what JSO is doing is quite clever for the cause and I don’t think bad actors are involved. If they are, they’re bad at their job.
They silence a lot of people fighting for climate change by making it harder for everyone to discuss this. They make it much harder every time they pull one of these stunts. Its not smart unless you’re talking about the oil industry execs funding them
1, BS. 2, The history of change is full of people who pissed off a lot of other people. Change never happens from asking politely and being meek
survivor basis on that. And really how much change do we have here? Aren’t we still fighting all the same issues for decades? Maybe time to face the truth
It’s not surivor bias. Unsuccessful protestors weren’t all killed. And no, we’re not fighting all the same issues: gay rights, woman’s rights, workers rights, racial equality have all made huge strides over the years and protests have led those changes. That’s the truth that you need to face. Read up on the civil rights movement for a good example, or emancipation for women.
“Silence”? How?
They don’t make it harder to discuss climate change. People don’t just go “a small group I hate cares about climate change so now I don’t care”. And if they do, well, they never actually cared about the climate. They cared about looking good and were never going to help with anything.
And stop with the conspiracy that they’re funded by oil executives. The organisation of the granddaughter of an oil billionaire (who is dead) funds 2% of them. Because, children and grandchildren, believe it or not, can disagree with their elders.
No they don’t, but if I want to talk about the same cause to try to change people’s minds, instead I have to explain away a bunch of extremists and try to get them to take the cause seriously despite those extremists
It’s 100% not a conspiracy and you can go back to find many climate organizations have been infiltrated by agent provocateurs since the 70s. The FBI sent a guy in had a kid and pulled him out leaving an entire family. Industries have lots of leaked documents showing their support for these groups because they’re so unpalatable to the average person.
These groups behavior often make it harder. It distracts from the fight and puts a giant clown hat on the whole issue. People will argue “it’s not permanent damage” without realizing the point that underlies that. This is about image. Its not about actual effect. Image is valuable and these people think that damaging the image somehow is the key to action because it gets people talking. Its not the 70s anymore everyone knows. We need these groups to be more self aware and create civil action to get people on board instead of making it unpalatable. Or just stop and give room for groups or drive positive change.
Ok but:
you’re talking about the US, JSO is UK based
It is a conspiracy theory because you have no hard evidence that JSO is infiltrated and having it’s strings pulled by big oil like you claim
No I’d actually argue it brings the fight to the forefront of people’s minds, specifically the people who are actually inclined to do something. Those who do nothing but complain about climate activism were never going to do anything useful and so their thoughts on the methods are frankly irrelevant since the methods work for those who actually want to act.
They’ve blockaded oil terminals and vandalised terrible offenders driving climate change, and still do. It was nowhere near as effective as their publicity stunts, which get people talking. They just ended up getting whisked away by police and largely ignored by the news. Pointless.
Whether you like it or not, the sort of quiet, non-inconvenient activism you seem to be proposing has shown itself to be useless.
Greenpeace, OWS, ELF, Activists at Standing rock and in Briton groups like CND (look up Mark Kennedy) have all been infiltrated and lead astray. But this group is somehow different? I call bullshit especially after seeing these groups piss off more and more people every time they make the news.
This doesn’t bring any of this to forefront of peoples minds. I’d argue it does the opposite of what you propose. It forces an association between the topic and people who are not appealing.
You should really evaluate what you’re saying here.
This issue hinges entirely on getting voters to care. Yet, many groups and even you seem to dismiss them, saying “they don’t matter.” In reality, voters are the most crucial factor.
It makes sense that the idea of alienating the general public from climate action might be intentionally promoted by well-funded and organized entities. These entities have the resources to influence groups, and we’ve seen this pattern in many movements since the beginning. Their goal is likely to disrupt and weaken the effectiveness of climate action initiatives.
If they didn’t make headlines a lot less people would be talking about climate change at this moment.
As I said earlier with examples for each category of people, almost everyone in this issue is not going to be influenced to change their opinion on a massive topic like climate change because of a small annoying group. Except those who’ll be spurred onto direct action.
And in that quote I was referring to those who complain about any climate activism (see the comments on blocked oil refineries and painted jets YouTube videos). Not voters overall.
This is a potential issue but as I’ve already said, I think what JSO is doing is quite clever for the cause and I don’t think bad actors are involved. If they are, they’re bad at their job.