Just Stop Oil

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/clima...ntl/index.html

I’m seeing a rash of pieces like this decrying the sentences the UK handed out to these “Just Stop Oil” people. They seem to believe they can save humanity by throwing paint at Stonehenge and old masters, blocking traffic, and glueing themselves to things. There are many videos out there of outraged drivers reacting to their exhibitionist antics.

I realize the UK takes a narrower view of free speech than prevails in the US. They can arrest people for “stirring up hate”, by whatever standard the government views as hate. But vandalism or keeping hundreds of thousands of people from their business seems to go beyond free expression to me.

Seems foolish behaviour. And inefficient.

If they really wanted to be effective at dismantling our fossil-fuel-based civilization, instead of getting cool Instagram photos, there are some clear paths available.

do they never ride in a car or bus? Never use plastic? Mow a lawn with a rotary motor? Rake nstead of a leaf blower? How is their electric generated and are the power plants made with components made of non oil containing products?
below is a list of products that use petrochemicals. Hard to live a modern life with none


any fool that destroys works of art and historical sites deserves to be punished. Blocking traffic endangers life and livelihood. First live an oil free life than lecture the rest of us.


https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products%20Made%20From%20Oil%20and%20Natural%20Gas %20Infographic.pdf

I think if our climate issues are resolved it will be by clever people trying to make a buck rather than spoiled children mistaking tantrums for performance art.

I guess it's what you consider "non-violent protest"--as an art and history lover I also hate to see irreplaceble works of art and historical icons damaged, but I also hate to see the the world damaged and destroyed by our culture in the way that it is. I'm not saying I support these activists, but sometimes you have elevate your voice when you're not being heard. MLK also stopped traffic and inconvenienced people when he had to.

bae, what are the clearer paths you're thinking of?

If elevating your voice is merely annoying people in an attempt to advance your cause, I think you’re well within your rights. You’d certainly be in good company, although it’s hard to see that you’d be winning many hearts and minds that way.

But when you find the law uncongenial to your high moral principles, and commit vandalism, arson, block traffic, occupy buildings or any other crime, then I don’t see why you shouldn’t be treated like any other criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

I guess it's what you consider "non-violent protest"--as an art and history lover I also hate to see irreplaceble works of art and historical icons damaged, but I also hate to see the the world damaged and destroyed by our culture in the way that it is. I'm not saying I support these activists, but sometimes you have elevate your voice when you're not being heard. MLK also stopped traffic and inconvenienced people when he had to.

bae, what are the clearer paths you're thinking of?

---

no, I would not agree that destroying objects or buildings is “nonviolent protest. “ Gandhi agrees with me.

Nonviolent protest is standing, sitting, or possibly walking injuring no persons or objects.

My common sense tends to think there would be the opposite of the intended outcome if the idea is represented by dummies defacing a world heritage site. Their word or opinion on oil might be judged on their sensibilities on destructive protest.

I have wondered about the effectiveness of peaceful protest. Some seem to work, but others quickly fade into meaningless obscurity. I have to think about what the Women's March on Washington was about, and occupy Wall Street is just a vestige of memory. People who have such a passion for an issue might better spend their efforts studying environmental law, or a science, education, or politics.

In the 70's there were ongoing protests objecting to the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant near Boulder. Thousands showed and some blocked a train track entrance to the plant in a sit in for over a year, between arrests. The main issue was radioactive dust from the plutonium processing had contaminated the surrounding soil and a water supply, and you didn't want to live down wind of the plant. It actually got a sizable amount of media attention which probably played a role in it's shutdown and declared a superfund site, although I suspect other incentives went along with the protests. A friend actually got a decent cash settlement just for living close and in the path of the prevailing wind direction.

Protests now seem more like an everyday occurrence.
.

No world heritage site was destroyed, the stonehenge stuff is not different than the traffic (I don't mean a literal car driving on it, although hey there is a road planned nearby so maybe I do) stonehenge has often gotten. But if you can not really damage anything and have stories made up that you are (which is basically what happened), maybe you may as well just actually destroy stuff. Because most of the protests including those involving art are actually designed to not causing any actual damage, which doesn't preclude the possibility of things not working out that way of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

But when you find the law uncongenial to your high moral principles, and commit vandalism, arson, block traffic, occupy buildings or any other crime, then I don’t see why you shouldn’t be treated like any other criminal.

---

Are you also as assured of that opinion when one commits an attempt to overthrow the government to stay in power? From all your previous posts you seem reticent about committing to that so I'm curious if you've finally accepted that this matters or if you are still hesitating?

okay-----the cause of that kind of stuff is that irrational malcontents and deranged and disturbed people latch onto some "libbberall" cause of sorts and become rebels, so they can somehow justify their antisocial behaviors. Pure and simple. All there is to it. Okay--so there's plenty of money out there to pay contractors to scrub the paint off the stones and build barriers around it so it's restricted for everyone('cause we've got to be "fair"), so that's their solution. Prison is "unfair" to the vandals, 'cause it impinges on their freedom of expression. Yup. Ha--even though it's England. Ha. hope that helps you kids, even though you've blocked littlebittymee and of course I blocked every one of you kids as a payback. How do you like that? Thankk mee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

No world heritage site was destroyed, the stonehenge stuff is not different than the traffic (I don't mean a literal car driving on it, although hey there is a road planned nearby so maybe I do) stonehenge has often gotten. But if you can not really damage anything and have stories made up that you are (which is basically what happened), maybe you may as well just actually destroy stuff. Because most of the protests including those involving art are actually designed to not causing any actual damage, which doesn't preclude the possibility of things not working out that way of course.

---

There was no apparent permanent damage, but Bobby has it right, there was a clean up at the expense of the tax payer and whatever disruptions they caused to visitors wanting the experience of visiting the site. I also believe there are people in England, like maybe some sort of druids, who consider the structure sacred. The charges against the protesters include various forms of damage. My punishment would be spending a lot of hours public service cleaning graffiti, but that's probably unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

No world heritage site was destroyed, the stonehenge stuff is not different than the traffic (I don't mean a literal car driving on it, although hey there is a road planned nearby so maybe I do) stonehenge has often gotten. But if you can not really damage anything and have stories made up that you are (which is basically what happened), maybe you may as well just actually destroy stuff. Because most of the protests including those involving art are actually designed to not causing any actual damage, which doesn't preclude the possibility of things not working out that way of course.

---

micro damage was done to Stonehenge.

you may not consider it important, but I do.

A Micro layer stone came off when the paint cleaning occured.

Again, I am not in favor of Stonehenge being damaged. I've been there, and I certainly was taken by the historical significance of it. But what about the coral reefs that are deadening? Micro damage was done to Stoneheange. Macro damage is being done to the coral reefs. Macro damage is being done to the topsoil that we depend on to grow food in the most efficient way unless we want to eat petri dish food. Macro damage is being done to the water and air--damage which will certainly intensify if Trump gets back in office.

Personally, I would never damage historical artifacts, but I wonder if someday we will wish that we had done less damage to the basic elements of our survival. Someday will we wax nostalgic over cod, or food grown in real soil, or water that doesn't need sophisticated filtration systems?

Great Catherine, so tell me how damaging Stonehenge helps coral reefs and etc.

what these idiots are doing makes not ONE iota of difference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

Great Catherine, so tell me how damaging Stonehenge helps coral reefs and etc.

what these idiots are doing makes not ONE iota of difference

---

It's counterproductive.

If they wanted to destroy something to help their cause, something related to the actual production of CO2 might be more ethical and useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

Are you also as assured of that opinion when one commits an attempt to overthrow the government to stay in power? From all your previous posts you seem reticent about committing to that so I'm curious if you've finally accepted that this matters or if you are still hesitating?

---

As riots go, I like that there were hundreds of arrests and convictions. We didn’t see the like for the deadly riots that preceded it. Nor did we hear the mealy-mouthed talk of “mostly peaceful protests” or “violence is the voice of the unheard”.

Do I think Trump’s behavior disqualifies him from the presidency? Yes. But I never considered him qualified in the first place. I think where we part company is your apparent belief that this obligates me to support any ridiculous alternative offered up in opposition.

If you don’t see the difference between random protests and an attempt to overthrow the government I don’t know what to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

If you don’t see the difference between random protests and an attempt to overthrow the government I don’t know what to say.

---

I doubt anyone looking at his burnt out family business would call it a “random protest” rather than a riot.

To my mind, any riot is an attack on government. It is also a violent tantrum, and no amount of excuse-making or media pixie dust will convince me otherwise. I see 10/7 as just another such violent tantrum rather than an organized coup attempt representing some kind of pivotal moment in history. I’m no supporter of Trump, but that does not mean I must blindly support anything some of his opposition feels I must. That would simply be elevating one brand of idiocy over another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

I doubt anyone looking at his burnt out family business would call it a “random protest” rather than a riot.

To my mind, any riot is an attack on government. It is also a violent tantrum, and no amount of excuse-making or media pixie dust will convince me otherwise. I see 10/7 as just another such violent tantrum rather than an organized coup attempt representing some kind of pivotal moment in history. I’m no supporter of Trump, but that does not mean I must blindly support anything some of his opposition feels I must. That would simply be elevating one brand of idiocy over another.

---

Got it. So you truly don’t see a difference between trump’s month’s long, multi-pronged attempt to overthrow the government and random riots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

I doubt anyone looking at his burnt out family business would call it a “random protest” rather than a riot.

To my mind, any riot is an attack on government. It is also a violent tantrum, and no amount of excuse-making or media pixie dust will convince me otherwise. I see 10/7 as just another such violent tantrum rather than an organized coup attempt representing some kind of pivotal moment in history. I’m no supporter of Trump, but that does not mean I must blindly support anything some of his opposition feels I must. That would simply be elevating one brand of idiocy over another.

---

I'd call the chants to "hang Mike Pence" a little more than just another violent tantrum. I don't know that the protesters actually had in mind overthrowing the government, but they did not believe the election results and had some twisted intentions of changing the outcome. But maybe in the end it really was just a bunch of idiot anarchists throwing a tantrum, since the outcome was unrealistic without a civil war of some sort.

Trump's and the GOP pressures and conspiracies to "find me" x number of votes or to alter legitimate ballot results were probably more of an attempt to illegally take control of the government and more serious and realistic criminal efforts against democracy.

If the election is close to the wire and Trump doesn't win I suspect there will deja vu or worse.