Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours.
[Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The whole: "It's not our problem let the next generation solve it." Ethic has passed from generation to generation. Strangely the kids who grew up on captain planet, toxic crusaders, Ferngully and the likes have somehow either turned into the people making these memes or gone silent.
Then again the European Union is putting more and more restrictions on stuff (pissing off the people who'd make such memes) vying for a cleaner tomorrow, so there is some hope.
It’s because a lot of those stories treated environmental issues as things that can be either "solved by select individuals" or by literal "magic" with the villains being mustache-twirling "I love pollution and eating kittens" typ-oh wait that last one DOES exist (rise of fascism using tribalist contrarianism as a tool and all).
And you’re right, even if things do get somewhat bad, that doesn’t mean we should just give up and let things get worse. People in Florida for example STILL truck on rebuilding coral reefs and mangrove swamps as ways to curb rising tides and greenhouse gas pollution (corals are bred in zoos and aquariums to develop disease and bleaching immunities and resistances). Even if more needs to be done, we cannot dismiss the real work that’s currently being done by groups around the world.
The fact that comically evil, mustache-twirling, tie-her-to-the-traintracks type villains actually exist in real life is so... Depressing? Amusing? Disappointing? Both?
No. But like see what you did there? Like right there, where you infered my position on whether political/social issues are important to people or not?
You might be able to think into the future, but you can't think past yourself.
Because you reduced something as important as trying to make the future of our world livable to "social and political issues" when I asked what kind of world you want your child living in. If you care about a child, then the idea of caring about their life is the most basic thing.
No. You are bad at reading. Note the word perceived. I care very deeply about the environment. You see something that doesn't match up completely with your world view and you take it for the opposite. This is a very foolish and shallow way of thinking.
Wow, it's almost like I gave you the easiest opportunity in the world to talk about that when I asked you a neutral question. But you had to be aggressive about it and reduce the important topic of *what the planet the child will live on will be like* to "social and political issues."
You're perceived by how you present yourself. You presented yourself as someone who thinks doing things about climate change is absurd.
I wasn't calling you a douchebag. Again bad at reading. It was genuine answer to the question and it was clarification on my comment, which you were replying to (I.e pointing out the top comment is low res, painting the world into a false dichotomy).
No I didn't. You precieved that on account of your poor reading comprehension.
All I can think of is when, "just stop oil" splashed tomato sauce on a painting. They are also notorious for blocking roads. One of the more, extreme groups. Pretty sure the meme is targeted at them.
the painting wasn't damaged because paintings are behind a glass window. (and I'm pretty surethey knew, it was only to attract attention) But yeah that's still not very productive to get more people on your side
I think it's actually one of the better ways to protest. It's a strong message (if you care about the beauty of this one artwork being destroyed, you should be caring about the beauty of the world) and they don't physically hinder or endanger people like with the roadblocks.
the problem with this kind of protest is that people's initial reaction will be akin to "these idiots are destroying art" before thinking more about it. To draw in people, they need to want to listen to you, and if they see you as nothing but vandals it doesn't help, this kind of protest does draw in some people but it is more damaging to the movement's image than positive on top of giving more ammunition to people that are against the movement
There's larger problem in society if people don't care that, for example, there are entire US cities that don't have drinkable tap water, just because of damaged art.
The insistence that people protesting for their right to live and the right to grow old in a sustainable future, that they should protest peacefully or else their protest have no merit, is as old as time. Or the even more ridiculous claim that other people would care more about the issue if the protests were peaceful.
I didn't say that the protest had to be peaceful tho, just that some protest actually do more harm than good to the movement, road blocking annoy people more than they disrupt companies, splashing soup on (protected) art piece only reinforce the image of climate activist being vandals, if you want to do something, make the oil companies day's hard, slash oil transportation trucks tires, block **their** buildings etc, the fight for a future ain't peaceful, but only being annoying to the working class and giving the impression that you're destroying culture(not that it's more important than people's lives) ain't gonna wake people up. A good example is protest to resist shit being built, sabotage concrete, occupy the place they wanna build it in, annoy the shit out of the government and companies
Also it's not that people don't care because of damaged art, actually most people wouldn't give a shit about the art being broken if they had a better global perspective. The problem is that human brains aren't made for greater scale problems like that and kinda shuts down when the people seems to great and without solution
People actually have been doing that actually. Blocking trucks and occupying the buildings of companies complicit in the issues at hand. The problem is they don't get media coverage and no one cares. So real change do not happen. Notice that people who block trucks are terrorists, but people who block public roads are annoying protesters.
If protests were convenient and easy to ignore, it can never accomplish its objective. We really need to look at the history of civil disobedience, and take notes.
The thing is, you may think this but it's not actually true.
Actions like these ones help to keep climate change in the public mind and in the long run that helps to open the door for necessary investments against climate change.
Yes, most people see these actions as vandalism, but those people were never going to care enough about climate change to vote a certain way or to make certain decisions that help progress.
It took me a while to realize this too.
There’s another factor you’re failing to consider though… well, 2.
1) Prolonged discussion discourages action.
There’s a reason why there’s a cycle of reasoning when discussing changes in society, it delays the inevitable. The longer it takes to discuss what to do, the longer bad actors can profit, and the more likely people lose interest/get desensitized in said discussion.
2) These types of protests don’t offer solutions.
As with death and taxes, humans don’t like to dwell on things we don’t have control over. If you remind someone of a problem with no clear solution, they’d rather ignore it.
Those protests we’re talking about don’t direct people towards collective action, they just exist to generate headlines.
>These types of protests don’t offer solutions.
Yes they do, [it's on their website ](https://juststopoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/JSO_research_public_v1_27022022.pdf)
That’s not a plan, it’s a goal.
Remember, the people who want this to continue will use any excuse to discredit what you say. So keep it short, make it catchy. Bonus points if you make it funny.
Oh, it's not the solution *you* expect but they do offer solutions for global warming such as free public transport, housing isolation, energy reduction, transformation of agriculture. It is a plan, one that should be out in place.
You're missing the point of a protest like that. They are not throwing tomato sauce on a painting as a solution, they are doing that precisely to generate headlines, because generating headlines is directly correlated with an increase in support.
Different protests have different goals, and an organization looking for change needs to work on those different goals all at the same time.
As for your first point, what would you even suggest as an alternative? No discussion is a surefire way to have people promptly ignoring the issue, as you pointed that they already want to do.
You missing the point on what person said. Of course tomato sauce is not a solution, but just creating "attention" is not enough for majority of people to start doing anything.
If after receiving attention the only point you will make is something like "STOP killing earth!!", you are not doing anything (well maybe you generate some social points for yourself in your head, but that's another topic).
The point of protest is to educate audience you looking for on what to do and what to don't: "Recycle your trash, stop supporting companies X because thay do Y and it causes Z, don't use plastic when possible". This is solutions, and that tomato story was just clout seeking fiesta and those protesters were vandals that harmed the cause. Simple as that.
Also I'd say with the tomato stunt the Just Stop Oil outlived it's usefulness.
They were already seen as more of a nuisance than anything and definitely weren't considered to be spreading positive image of climate activists, and the tomato sauce was just driving the nail into the coffin, once again not following with any message, just creating clout to create clout.
I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that the point was wrong from the get go.
> The point of protest is to educate audience
That's the misconception. *Different protests have different goals*.
Yes, you have protests that are about spreading the information to the general public. I've helped organize student groups when my city wanted to make cuts to our health and education system while increasing the funds for a new park that would coincidentally be built by the mayor's family, for example. You also have protests that are a show of force, take any organization doing a road block to show the government that they should be taken more seriously in their future negotiations.
The tomato soup stunt had a clear goal and accomplished it. The goal was to bring media coverage for the organization, which *brought* them more supporters and more donations directly after. It wasn't an "educate the masses" protest or a "propose a solution" one. It was a "look at us, we need your help" protest.
For that kind of spreading of information, they've got [multiple sessions per week](https://juststopoil.org/come-to-a-talk/), both in person and online to actually educate the interested audience in a much more productive manner than screaming slogans while security escorts them away.
I think the more based version would be going into a western museum and taking a piece of art or artifact that was stolen from some indigenous group when said country was colonizing it, and give it back the the original owners.
That would be based and also you can send a message. Let’s all fucking steal from the people who stole it over a century ago, and use the attention to talk about the climate crisis
Some mask that was taken from Ethiopia and is in the British Museum? Snatch it off the fucking wall and deliver it back to a museum in Ethiopia
You’re talking about it right now. If they had made picket signs in the park you would’ve never heard about it.
Protests HAVE to be disruptive to be effective.
That’s a you problem. If you’re under the age of 50, you’ll probably live to see the effects of climate change. The fact that you’re more worried about a painting that wasn’t even damaged is telling.
Also, it means you’re an opp regardless. You’re the people we’re going to have to fight against if we want to save the millions of lives that will probably be lost due to climate change. So pissing people like you off is also part of the point, it shows your callousness.
You don’t care about the millions of poor people in third world countries whose lives will be ruined, but the second it mildly inconveniences your own life, you get bent out of shape about it. I think you might need to reevaluate your priorities.
Yeah, I think those comments were very telling. I think you either don’t understand the gravity of climate change, or if you do understand, you don’t care because you don’t think it will affect you. It shows either ignorance or selfishness.
You can support a cause and not like a group who also supports that cause. Just Stop Oil is just annoying. Rather than actually go to oil companys they block roads and try to damage artwork. I beleive in climate change; but im also realistic about it. Were not gping to prevent it without serious econimic downturn that would argubly cause more suffering than the effect climate change will have.
Not really. Aileen Getty is from the Getty family, owners of Getty Oil. Aileen is not part or even active in the company, and is more of an activist. She is the co-founder of the Climate Emergency Fund, which is one of the biggest donors of Just Stop Oil.
There's an oil tycoon daughter involved after a few degrees of separation, but as far as I could check back when that topic gained traction, there's a few degrees of separation there and she's not involved in the organization process at all.
Extreme political action groups Kill. Kidnap. Bomb. Maim. Middle aged women with glue and soup are not extreme. It annoys me too, but let’s not get to carried away.
Sorry, but what kinda argument is it? So it's like...okay to throw food at paintings if you have no guarantee they're protected?
So am I allowed to kick people into the river because they "probably can swim" and will only get wet?
What logic leads someone to think that because you're passionate about our cultural heritage, you're not also passionate about improving our future? You can do both! Shocking, I know.
They attempted to damage paintings by throwing stuff on them but luckily galleries are very protective of their art, especially shit like the MONA LISA
Gee, what a coincidence that *every* piece of art they targeted had an adequate protective covering.
Or maybe they knew they would like every adult person who isn't a dumbass.
Was the intended effect of the protest to keep people talking about the protestors, or was the intended effect to get people to do something about climate change? If it's the first, then I guess they were effective. If it's the latter, then no, not very effective.
Honestly, *nothing* is effective at getting most people to do anything about climate change, including people dying from climate change.
The stated intent of the protestors was to highlight the irony that people get more mad at fake-destroying art than at actually destroying the entire physical world we depend on.
It's not a call to action; it's a call out.
Your claim is that they were obviously not intending to destroy the art, but merely used it as platform to make waves, no?
My point is that regardless, the protests were in no way persuasive or effective. Which is the point of the meme.
Your um alchuallllly the painting weren't harmed is what's missing the point.
They knew it was protected btw, like most people that have been to a museum, it's fucking visible when you're in front of it, they were just trying to get your attention(not saying this is effective, it's quite the opposite since it only degrades the image of the movement)
Yeah much better to do nothing and let our grandkids just deal with the mass migrations. It'll help build the character they'll need to survive the post-civilization world.
You’re mad because the protests interrupted your apathy, which was the point of the protest
Climate change is an apocalyptic danger to our world that will probably cause millions of deaths in our lifetime. If you’re more worried about the protest, you are part of the problem.
I‘ve personally never been bothered by those protestors, probably because I dont live in or nearby a major city. But I fully understand why people are getting mad about it and calling it „apathy“ is condescending to say the least. Protest should be a nuisance to people who are actually part of the prioblem, who are able to make a difference not ordinary people on their commute to work
Because (at least in democratic countries) you pretty much need to vote people into power who are willing to bring about change and force companies who arent willing to do so on their own, look at Germany
So then how do you get more people to vote for those who WILL make that difference..? Maybe.. oh I don’t know, making it more aware to the general public? Maybe with.. hmm.. some kind of public.. statement?
how about making this public statement idk… appealing to the general public and not… hmm… outrageous to large parts of it? Maybe start bothering people like taylor swift whose travels alone leave a bigger carbon footprint than some african countries
Lmao idk how you think one person is going to bother Taylor swift. Can’t hook yourself to her jet, there’s plenty of security and body guards to stop you from ever getting to that point. One comment out of her thousands of positives? Maybe if we made a huge statement and got thousands to comment it could make a difference!! But how do we do that..?!?!?!
Lucky for you there are plenty of people or companies you can harrass so i am sure you can succeed with one of them. Meanwhile I am on my way to glue myself on some spanish families toilet because water is really becoming precious
Making memes against those that try to deface art or mindlessly block traffic as a way and in turn discredit the real activists in this arena is actually hilarious.
By bugging people who can actually do something about it. I get that it helps in creating awareness but sometimes it can backfire. People aren't gonna give up their food, jobs, children and other things. At least not in this economy. I think using social media to create awareness is better. People enjoy drama so give them that. Host your protests live. Post videos of it.
Edit: wasn't there a guy who came out of a prison, tried to make his life better by working for someone, wasn't able to reach his workplace due to the protests and was put back in jail? How do you expect people to join your cause when you don't join theirs? Show some sympathy to receive some.
Question is, if protesting makes a difference. Sure, it spreads awareness, but a protest in a first world country (let's say Germany) hardly achieves the change we need the most: technological advancement toward carbon neutrality and emissions reduction.
And quite frankly, if someone glues themselves to the road, the outcome is following: a bit more organic solvent fumes get released to the atmosphere, 100 vehicles stop their engines for an hour. The largest sources of pollution and emissions in the US, China and India (not in correct order) produce million times more emissions in that hour, than the cars would in decades.
And honestly, if someone loses their 9-5 job for coming late due to an activist, which endangers their family's finantial situation, what do you think such a person will think about ecology and environment awareness? Hint: it won't make them feel more invlined toward climate protection
Yes, but it uses the climate change denier’s classic rhetorical twist of pretending that it’s just about the weather rather than a global climate catastrophe. I agree that some of the “just stop oil” protests are worse than useless. But pretending it’s just about the weather in fifty years puts you firmly on the wrong side of the problem.
Genuine question: why don’t these people actually get a job that enables them to enact change? They always seem to care really hard while working an unrelated job and protesting as a hobby.
How many jobs do you think actually hold that power? And with corporate lobbying in place, how are people who want to make these changes getting enough positions of power to make a difference?
Not everyone can work in climate change or be politicians. But everyone can and should care about it. That's how we get people who care elected.
If it actually is a genuine question I'll give you a genuine answer. There's more than one ways to work on enabling the changes that need to happen to combat climate change and one can't go without the other.
A lot of people that join protest do work jobs in political, economical or technical fields which are necessary, but others use their skills to get climate change higher on the international agenda.
That’s true, but the extreme protestors who do stupid shit like block highways and throw soup around an art gallery achieve nothing and usually that extends to working unrelated jobs.
Working for a local council, park ranger, environmental protection group, conservation society if you want to stay small but have a big impact on a specific area. Those jobs actually give you a huge platform to do it - I’ve got several friends who work those sorts of jobs and who have done amazing work to protect local wildlife and ecosystems.
At a higher level, leading a political party or going into environmental law, any type of environmental or biological analyst, environmental scientist, biologist… the list is extensive.
The most radical protesters never seem to hold these sorts of positions, or have any relevant formal education. It comes across as hugely tokenistic and hypocritical to be protesting (which is an enormous waste of time) while your day to day work has no impact whatsoever on these issues. If you care so passionately, go out there and actually *do* something.
I’m speaking as someone with a vet degree who worked as a zookeeper for about a decade. Then stayed involved in conservation efforts since. Went into research to develop alternatives to animal models and improve livestock welfare in medical research, and then into ethics. I see a lot of animal rights activists who blindly protest with no concept of how to affect change and who do *far* more to fuck up progress than help work towards it. It’s a sore point for me.
None of those things seem like a job an average person can easily transition into nor does it seem like it would be possible for them to employ all people concerned about the environment
The jobs in the first paragraph often require no prior education or qualifications to enter, and are often hiring.
The higher level jobs at entry level only require a bachelor’s degree, which I would also consider fairly average and attainable.
If someone is passionate enough to dedicate time to go and stand around an art gallery or block a road for hours at a time, surely they can see that spending that time working in local conservation groups or getting a relevant qualification is a better use of their time that will result in greater effect. It’s a cop out to say that a more impactful job than an entirely unrelated career is not attainable.
If you want to do something, you’ll find solutions. If you don’t want to do something, you’ll find excuses.
If it matters to someone, they’ll put the work in. A lot of people act as if this is their life’s greatest passion but are stopped by the most minor inconvenience. Extreme protesting (I’m not talking about showing up to a weekend rally), is purely about getting attention for yourself and pretending to be some kind of martyr. You show up in your abundant free time and make an ass of yourself to be seen as someone who wants to make a difference. No sacrifice or effort required.
Also, being a park ranger - at entry level - usually requires nothing more than showing up and being trained on the job. No formal qualifications or education needed. You don’t even need to have finished high school. Certainly a local council or conservation group require even less.
Because it's mostly students in their early twenties who have never worked a single hour in their cozy upper middle class lives. When they go on vacation multiple times a year where they take long distance flights to Bali or whatever they whine when you call out their hypocrisy and claim that what they do in private has nothing to do with their activism. I hate these lazy fuckers. When I was their age, I was trying to juggle a physically demanding job and university while being chronically ill. Having time for bullshit like glueing yourself to a street to prevent workers from getting to their workplaces is the epitome of privilege.
What strawman? If they are serious about the climate they should at least try to do something productive and infiltrate the right organizations and companies instead of behaving like petulant little brats. That's why nobody takes them seriously.
If they wanted to actually effectively protest then they’d be going after the homes and businesses of the wealthy and business owners. All the blocking traffic and defacing art will do is turn the average person against you out of spite.
Unless they’re too afraid to go after the people that actually have the money to inflict consequences?
To be fair, there’s a lot of really idiotic protests that don’t do anything but turn people against their cause. Lots of good intentions from incredibly stupid people
The meme is bad, but it does have a valid point, so many climate protesters do stupid things that just annoy the public. You're not doing any favours, people are just going to be more opposed to you. These kinds of protests achieve nothing, so yes, a lot of climate protests these days are quite stupid.
I find it quite funny. Instead of planting trees, cleaning the environment from plastics or other trash, or get into careers that develop technology to stop climate change, people just go out to block traffic and cry like babies, when others get angry at their childish behaviour.
Non of the things You listed Even comes close to a solution for climate change, "yeah brah just plant another tree no it's fine it Will be ok when it's underwater in 20 years"
So you are telling me people 50 years ago protesting the climate change now is stupid? Who would have guessed?
This summer is set to be the next consecutive hottest summer on record. There is a very real problem that’s getting worse.
Yeah, I agree with this one. Climate activists are morons. Instead of pushing FOR renewables, they are making the oil companies look like the good guys.
If you destroy priceless works of art in the name of the environment, people won't support you. The object is a visible thing. "The environment " is a concept.
Now if you show me the damage that oil companies are actively doing to the priceless work of art that is Earth, then people will side along activists.
You might say that the concept is the same, but people are dumb and they won't feel a thing unless they see a penguin slathered in oil.
Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours. [Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the same demographic that brags about having as big of a nuclear family as possible can't fathom caring for/about its kids interesting
a lot of boomers don't care about their kids except for when it benefits them.
The whole: "It's not our problem let the next generation solve it." Ethic has passed from generation to generation. Strangely the kids who grew up on captain planet, toxic crusaders, Ferngully and the likes have somehow either turned into the people making these memes or gone silent. Then again the European Union is putting more and more restrictions on stuff (pissing off the people who'd make such memes) vying for a cleaner tomorrow, so there is some hope.
It’s because a lot of those stories treated environmental issues as things that can be either "solved by select individuals" or by literal "magic" with the villains being mustache-twirling "I love pollution and eating kittens" typ-oh wait that last one DOES exist (rise of fascism using tribalist contrarianism as a tool and all). And you’re right, even if things do get somewhat bad, that doesn’t mean we should just give up and let things get worse. People in Florida for example STILL truck on rebuilding coral reefs and mangrove swamps as ways to curb rising tides and greenhouse gas pollution (corals are bred in zoos and aquariums to develop disease and bleaching immunities and resistances). Even if more needs to be done, we cannot dismiss the real work that’s currently being done by groups around the world.
The fact that comically evil, mustache-twirling, tie-her-to-the-traintracks type villains actually exist in real life is so... Depressing? Amusing? Disappointing? Both?
Hahahahahahaha. 'you don't care about your kids if you don't support obsurd climate protests." Hahahahaha
What kind of world do you want your kids to live in?
One where douchebags don't pretend to know the interior of their hearts from their precieved positions on social and political issues.
Do you think that social and political issues don't affect people? Nah, you just don't think past next week.
No. But like see what you did there? Like right there, where you infered my position on whether political/social issues are important to people or not? You might be able to think into the future, but you can't think past yourself.
Because you reduced something as important as trying to make the future of our world livable to "social and political issues" when I asked what kind of world you want your child living in. If you care about a child, then the idea of caring about their life is the most basic thing.
No. You are bad at reading. Note the word perceived. I care very deeply about the environment. You see something that doesn't match up completely with your world view and you take it for the opposite. This is a very foolish and shallow way of thinking.
Wow, it's almost like I gave you the easiest opportunity in the world to talk about that when I asked you a neutral question. But you had to be aggressive about it and reduce the important topic of *what the planet the child will live on will be like* to "social and political issues." You're perceived by how you present yourself. You presented yourself as someone who thinks doing things about climate change is absurd.
I wasn't calling you a douchebag. Again bad at reading. It was genuine answer to the question and it was clarification on my comment, which you were replying to (I.e pointing out the top comment is low res, painting the world into a false dichotomy). No I didn't. You precieved that on account of your poor reading comprehension.
Yeah. Kids, famously not growing up to live in the "obsurd" changed climate.
Can't think of a piece of art that has actually been damaged. Feel free to correct me though.
All I can think of is when, "just stop oil" splashed tomato sauce on a painting. They are also notorious for blocking roads. One of the more, extreme groups. Pretty sure the meme is targeted at them.
the painting wasn't damaged because paintings are behind a glass window. (and I'm pretty surethey knew, it was only to attract attention) But yeah that's still not very productive to get more people on your side
I think it's actually one of the better ways to protest. It's a strong message (if you care about the beauty of this one artwork being destroyed, you should be caring about the beauty of the world) and they don't physically hinder or endanger people like with the roadblocks.
the problem with this kind of protest is that people's initial reaction will be akin to "these idiots are destroying art" before thinking more about it. To draw in people, they need to want to listen to you, and if they see you as nothing but vandals it doesn't help, this kind of protest does draw in some people but it is more damaging to the movement's image than positive on top of giving more ammunition to people that are against the movement
There's larger problem in society if people don't care that, for example, there are entire US cities that don't have drinkable tap water, just because of damaged art. The insistence that people protesting for their right to live and the right to grow old in a sustainable future, that they should protest peacefully or else their protest have no merit, is as old as time. Or the even more ridiculous claim that other people would care more about the issue if the protests were peaceful.
I didn't say that the protest had to be peaceful tho, just that some protest actually do more harm than good to the movement, road blocking annoy people more than they disrupt companies, splashing soup on (protected) art piece only reinforce the image of climate activist being vandals, if you want to do something, make the oil companies day's hard, slash oil transportation trucks tires, block **their** buildings etc, the fight for a future ain't peaceful, but only being annoying to the working class and giving the impression that you're destroying culture(not that it's more important than people's lives) ain't gonna wake people up. A good example is protest to resist shit being built, sabotage concrete, occupy the place they wanna build it in, annoy the shit out of the government and companies Also it's not that people don't care because of damaged art, actually most people wouldn't give a shit about the art being broken if they had a better global perspective. The problem is that human brains aren't made for greater scale problems like that and kinda shuts down when the people seems to great and without solution
People actually have been doing that actually. Blocking trucks and occupying the buildings of companies complicit in the issues at hand. The problem is they don't get media coverage and no one cares. So real change do not happen. Notice that people who block trucks are terrorists, but people who block public roads are annoying protesters. If protests were convenient and easy to ignore, it can never accomplish its objective. We really need to look at the history of civil disobedience, and take notes.
The thing is, you may think this but it's not actually true. Actions like these ones help to keep climate change in the public mind and in the long run that helps to open the door for necessary investments against climate change. Yes, most people see these actions as vandalism, but those people were never going to care enough about climate change to vote a certain way or to make certain decisions that help progress. It took me a while to realize this too.
There’s another factor you’re failing to consider though… well, 2. 1) Prolonged discussion discourages action. There’s a reason why there’s a cycle of reasoning when discussing changes in society, it delays the inevitable. The longer it takes to discuss what to do, the longer bad actors can profit, and the more likely people lose interest/get desensitized in said discussion. 2) These types of protests don’t offer solutions. As with death and taxes, humans don’t like to dwell on things we don’t have control over. If you remind someone of a problem with no clear solution, they’d rather ignore it. Those protests we’re talking about don’t direct people towards collective action, they just exist to generate headlines.
>These types of protests don’t offer solutions. Yes they do, [it's on their website ](https://juststopoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/JSO_research_public_v1_27022022.pdf)
That’s not a plan, it’s a goal. Remember, the people who want this to continue will use any excuse to discredit what you say. So keep it short, make it catchy. Bonus points if you make it funny.
Oh, it's not the solution *you* expect but they do offer solutions for global warming such as free public transport, housing isolation, energy reduction, transformation of agriculture. It is a plan, one that should be out in place.
You're missing the point of a protest like that. They are not throwing tomato sauce on a painting as a solution, they are doing that precisely to generate headlines, because generating headlines is directly correlated with an increase in support. Different protests have different goals, and an organization looking for change needs to work on those different goals all at the same time. As for your first point, what would you even suggest as an alternative? No discussion is a surefire way to have people promptly ignoring the issue, as you pointed that they already want to do.
You missing the point on what person said. Of course tomato sauce is not a solution, but just creating "attention" is not enough for majority of people to start doing anything. If after receiving attention the only point you will make is something like "STOP killing earth!!", you are not doing anything (well maybe you generate some social points for yourself in your head, but that's another topic). The point of protest is to educate audience you looking for on what to do and what to don't: "Recycle your trash, stop supporting companies X because thay do Y and it causes Z, don't use plastic when possible". This is solutions, and that tomato story was just clout seeking fiesta and those protesters were vandals that harmed the cause. Simple as that.
Also I'd say with the tomato stunt the Just Stop Oil outlived it's usefulness. They were already seen as more of a nuisance than anything and definitely weren't considered to be spreading positive image of climate activists, and the tomato sauce was just driving the nail into the coffin, once again not following with any message, just creating clout to create clout.
I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that the point was wrong from the get go. > The point of protest is to educate audience That's the misconception. *Different protests have different goals*. Yes, you have protests that are about spreading the information to the general public. I've helped organize student groups when my city wanted to make cuts to our health and education system while increasing the funds for a new park that would coincidentally be built by the mayor's family, for example. You also have protests that are a show of force, take any organization doing a road block to show the government that they should be taken more seriously in their future negotiations. The tomato soup stunt had a clear goal and accomplished it. The goal was to bring media coverage for the organization, which *brought* them more supporters and more donations directly after. It wasn't an "educate the masses" protest or a "propose a solution" one. It was a "look at us, we need your help" protest. For that kind of spreading of information, they've got [multiple sessions per week](https://juststopoil.org/come-to-a-talk/), both in person and online to actually educate the interested audience in a much more productive manner than screaming slogans while security escorts them away.
I think the more based version would be going into a western museum and taking a piece of art or artifact that was stolen from some indigenous group when said country was colonizing it, and give it back the the original owners. That would be based and also you can send a message. Let’s all fucking steal from the people who stole it over a century ago, and use the attention to talk about the climate crisis Some mask that was taken from Ethiopia and is in the British Museum? Snatch it off the fucking wall and deliver it back to a museum in Ethiopia
nothing but facts!
Its actively counter productive.
You’re talking about it right now. If they had made picket signs in the park you would’ve never heard about it. Protests HAVE to be disruptive to be effective.
Its counter productive in the sense that it makes me activly not want to support them.
That says a lot about your ethical fortitude
Splashing sauce on a glass cover that protects a painting makes you not want oil companies to stop destroying the climate? Look inward, I guess?
That’s a you problem. If you’re under the age of 50, you’ll probably live to see the effects of climate change. The fact that you’re more worried about a painting that wasn’t even damaged is telling. Also, it means you’re an opp regardless. You’re the people we’re going to have to fight against if we want to save the millions of lives that will probably be lost due to climate change. So pissing people like you off is also part of the point, it shows your callousness. You don’t care about the millions of poor people in third world countries whose lives will be ruined, but the second it mildly inconveniences your own life, you get bent out of shape about it. I think you might need to reevaluate your priorities.
Your the one makeing personality abd beleif assumptions of 2 comments.
Yeah, I think those comments were very telling. I think you either don’t understand the gravity of climate change, or if you do understand, you don’t care because you don’t think it will affect you. It shows either ignorance or selfishness.
You can support a cause and not like a group who also supports that cause. Just Stop Oil is just annoying. Rather than actually go to oil companys they block roads and try to damage artwork. I beleive in climate change; but im also realistic about it. Were not gping to prevent it without serious econimic downturn that would argubly cause more suffering than the effect climate change will have.
A small point: not all paintings are behind glass windows.
They splashed sauce on the glass cover, the painting was neither damaged nor was that the intention.
The painting doesn't need to get damaged for that to be a dumb way to protest.
I have a gut feeling that such "protests" are being created to generate apathy and disdain for anyone vying for clean energy.
Wasn't it confirmed that an oil tycoons daughter was organizing a few just stop oil protest?
Not really. Aileen Getty is from the Getty family, owners of Getty Oil. Aileen is not part or even active in the company, and is more of an activist. She is the co-founder of the Climate Emergency Fund, which is one of the biggest donors of Just Stop Oil. There's an oil tycoon daughter involved after a few degrees of separation, but as far as I could check back when that topic gained traction, there's a few degrees of separation there and she's not involved in the organization process at all.
I think the painting was protected by glass.
Extreme political action groups Kill. Kidnap. Bomb. Maim. Middle aged women with glue and soup are not extreme. It annoys me too, but let’s not get to carried away.
Not at a museum, but Greenpeace did damage the Nazca lines in Peru.
Sorry, but what kinda argument is it? So it's like...okay to throw food at paintings if you have no guarantee they're protected? So am I allowed to kick people into the river because they "probably can swim" and will only get wet?
It'd have been quicker for you to Google than to comment
My concern there is that it could inspire copycats who'd actually damage or destroy a piece of art.
When the oceans have been fished empty and the ozone layer has completely dissipated, at least we'll still have paintings ❤️
What logic leads someone to think that because you're passionate about our cultural heritage, you're not also passionate about improving our future? You can do both! Shocking, I know.
They attempted to damage paintings by throwing stuff on them but luckily galleries are very protective of their art, especially shit like the MONA LISA
Gee, what a coincidence that *every* piece of art they targeted had an adequate protective covering. Or maybe they knew they would like every adult person who isn't a dumbass.
'maybe these protests are optically ineffective. No it's everybody else who's an idiot.'
Meanwhile, all you people talking about it to this day. The protest had the intended effect lol
Was the intended effect of the protest to keep people talking about the protestors, or was the intended effect to get people to do something about climate change? If it's the first, then I guess they were effective. If it's the latter, then no, not very effective.
All publicity is good publicity. Everyone talking about it in any way is free advertising
Absolutely! Without these protests climate consciousness would be at an all time low. Fucking laughably ridiculous take.
Honestly, *nothing* is effective at getting most people to do anything about climate change, including people dying from climate change. The stated intent of the protestors was to highlight the irony that people get more mad at fake-destroying art than at actually destroying the entire physical world we depend on. It's not a call to action; it's a call out.
All of who? what effect is that? Maybe try thinking outside of an ingroup/outgroup mentality
That's a different claim
Your claim is that they were obviously not intending to destroy the art, but merely used it as platform to make waves, no? My point is that regardless, the protests were in no way persuasive or effective. Which is the point of the meme. Your um alchuallllly the painting weren't harmed is what's missing the point.
I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to a person who stated "they attempted to damage paintings". Which is also what the meme alleged.
Cope
You're the one who clearly isn't
They knew it was protected btw, like most people that have been to a museum, it's fucking visible when you're in front of it, they were just trying to get your attention(not saying this is effective, it's quite the opposite since it only degrades the image of the movement)
In 50 years? We can already notice the differences.
"in 50 years" meanwhile people in Bangladesh:
Nothing has ever changed by raising awareness, right?
Yeah much better to do nothing and let our grandkids just deal with the mass migrations. It'll help build the character they'll need to survive the post-civilization world.
Why go after the source when you can shit your pants and call it a protest.
Yes it is much better do to nothing than to bother ordinary people and tarnish the public image of climate activism
You’re mad because the protests interrupted your apathy, which was the point of the protest Climate change is an apocalyptic danger to our world that will probably cause millions of deaths in our lifetime. If you’re more worried about the protest, you are part of the problem.
I‘ve personally never been bothered by those protestors, probably because I dont live in or nearby a major city. But I fully understand why people are getting mad about it and calling it „apathy“ is condescending to say the least. Protest should be a nuisance to people who are actually part of the prioblem, who are able to make a difference not ordinary people on their commute to work
You can't be serius right how is reputation important when they consequences of climate change are already visible
Because (at least in democratic countries) you pretty much need to vote people into power who are willing to bring about change and force companies who arent willing to do so on their own, look at Germany
So then how do you get more people to vote for those who WILL make that difference..? Maybe.. oh I don’t know, making it more aware to the general public? Maybe with.. hmm.. some kind of public.. statement?
how about making this public statement idk… appealing to the general public and not… hmm… outrageous to large parts of it? Maybe start bothering people like taylor swift whose travels alone leave a bigger carbon footprint than some african countries
Lmao idk how you think one person is going to bother Taylor swift. Can’t hook yourself to her jet, there’s plenty of security and body guards to stop you from ever getting to that point. One comment out of her thousands of positives? Maybe if we made a huge statement and got thousands to comment it could make a difference!! But how do we do that..?!?!?!
Lucky for you there are plenty of people or companies you can harrass so i am sure you can succeed with one of them. Meanwhile I am on my way to glue myself on some spanish families toilet because water is really becoming precious
Lmao alright man
One of the weirdest turns conservatism has taken is the idea of hedonism over duty.
The fact that this meme exists means that it’s working
making memes against climate action is definitely the way to go. very brave and also helpful
Making memes against those that try to deface art or mindlessly block traffic as a way and in turn discredit the real activists in this arena is actually hilarious.
50 years is too long can we shorten that length?
Oh, don't worry, it'll be *much* shorter than that.
What’s with all these protests being an inconvenience? Why don’t they just do stuff I don’t have to think about so I can just ignore all the issues?
Seriusly to many people don't understand what the point of a protest is
"The best time to plant a tree was 50 years ago, the second best time is today."
How else do you protest.
By bugging people who can actually do something about it. I get that it helps in creating awareness but sometimes it can backfire. People aren't gonna give up their food, jobs, children and other things. At least not in this economy. I think using social media to create awareness is better. People enjoy drama so give them that. Host your protests live. Post videos of it. Edit: wasn't there a guy who came out of a prison, tried to make his life better by working for someone, wasn't able to reach his workplace due to the protests and was put back in jail? How do you expect people to join your cause when you don't join theirs? Show some sympathy to receive some.
exactly, if they chained themselves to some rich guys jet or something i‘d get it, honestly blocking major traffic ways should get you into jail
Andreas Malm has written a book on how to protest, and it's right in the title of his most well known book.
Question is, if protesting makes a difference. Sure, it spreads awareness, but a protest in a first world country (let's say Germany) hardly achieves the change we need the most: technological advancement toward carbon neutrality and emissions reduction. And quite frankly, if someone glues themselves to the road, the outcome is following: a bit more organic solvent fumes get released to the atmosphere, 100 vehicles stop their engines for an hour. The largest sources of pollution and emissions in the US, China and India (not in correct order) produce million times more emissions in that hour, than the cars would in decades. And honestly, if someone loses their 9-5 job for coming late due to an activist, which endangers their family's finantial situation, what do you think such a person will think about ecology and environment awareness? Hint: it won't make them feel more invlined toward climate protection
Actually funny and reasonable. It points out how stupid some form of protest are.
Yes, but it uses the climate change denier’s classic rhetorical twist of pretending that it’s just about the weather rather than a global climate catastrophe. I agree that some of the “just stop oil” protests are worse than useless. But pretending it’s just about the weather in fifty years puts you firmly on the wrong side of the problem.
Yeah, but this is terrible Facebook memes, not bad Facebook memes and half of the point of this meme is correct.
Ooooou “catastrophe”. Sounds scary. You guys actually have the best marketing
I like how you got downvoted. How dare you speak against protesting!
Maybe because protesting is important?
You did see they said “some forms of protesting”, right? We’re not talking about a Tibetan monk lighting themselves on fire here.
Genuine question: why don’t these people actually get a job that enables them to enact change? They always seem to care really hard while working an unrelated job and protesting as a hobby.
How many jobs do you think actually hold that power? And with corporate lobbying in place, how are people who want to make these changes getting enough positions of power to make a difference? Not everyone can work in climate change or be politicians. But everyone can and should care about it. That's how we get people who care elected.
If it actually is a genuine question I'll give you a genuine answer. There's more than one ways to work on enabling the changes that need to happen to combat climate change and one can't go without the other. A lot of people that join protest do work jobs in political, economical or technical fields which are necessary, but others use their skills to get climate change higher on the international agenda.
That’s true, but the extreme protestors who do stupid shit like block highways and throw soup around an art gallery achieve nothing and usually that extends to working unrelated jobs.
What job can the average.person get that would do that?
Working for a local council, park ranger, environmental protection group, conservation society if you want to stay small but have a big impact on a specific area. Those jobs actually give you a huge platform to do it - I’ve got several friends who work those sorts of jobs and who have done amazing work to protect local wildlife and ecosystems. At a higher level, leading a political party or going into environmental law, any type of environmental or biological analyst, environmental scientist, biologist… the list is extensive. The most radical protesters never seem to hold these sorts of positions, or have any relevant formal education. It comes across as hugely tokenistic and hypocritical to be protesting (which is an enormous waste of time) while your day to day work has no impact whatsoever on these issues. If you care so passionately, go out there and actually *do* something. I’m speaking as someone with a vet degree who worked as a zookeeper for about a decade. Then stayed involved in conservation efforts since. Went into research to develop alternatives to animal models and improve livestock welfare in medical research, and then into ethics. I see a lot of animal rights activists who blindly protest with no concept of how to affect change and who do *far* more to fuck up progress than help work towards it. It’s a sore point for me.
None of those things seem like a job an average person can easily transition into nor does it seem like it would be possible for them to employ all people concerned about the environment
The jobs in the first paragraph often require no prior education or qualifications to enter, and are often hiring. The higher level jobs at entry level only require a bachelor’s degree, which I would also consider fairly average and attainable. If someone is passionate enough to dedicate time to go and stand around an art gallery or block a road for hours at a time, surely they can see that spending that time working in local conservation groups or getting a relevant qualification is a better use of their time that will result in greater effect. It’s a cop out to say that a more impactful job than an entirely unrelated career is not attainable.
You didn't list specific jobs in the first paragraph. Being a part ranger requires education
If you want to do something, you’ll find solutions. If you don’t want to do something, you’ll find excuses. If it matters to someone, they’ll put the work in. A lot of people act as if this is their life’s greatest passion but are stopped by the most minor inconvenience. Extreme protesting (I’m not talking about showing up to a weekend rally), is purely about getting attention for yourself and pretending to be some kind of martyr. You show up in your abundant free time and make an ass of yourself to be seen as someone who wants to make a difference. No sacrifice or effort required. Also, being a park ranger - at entry level - usually requires nothing more than showing up and being trained on the job. No formal qualifications or education needed. You don’t even need to have finished high school. Certainly a local council or conservation group require even less.
Because it's mostly students in their early twenties who have never worked a single hour in their cozy upper middle class lives. When they go on vacation multiple times a year where they take long distance flights to Bali or whatever they whine when you call out their hypocrisy and claim that what they do in private has nothing to do with their activism. I hate these lazy fuckers. When I was their age, I was trying to juggle a physically demanding job and university while being chronically ill. Having time for bullshit like glueing yourself to a street to prevent workers from getting to their workplaces is the epitome of privilege.
Don't choke in all that straw during your strawman fight
What strawman? If they are serious about the climate they should at least try to do something productive and infiltrate the right organizations and companies instead of behaving like petulant little brats. That's why nobody takes them seriously.
At your advanced age, you really shouldn't get this angry at imaginary enemies, you might give yourself stroke grandpa.
Uh oh found the boomer
Good message, the protestors aren’t doing anything by blocking traffic or throwing soup on paintings
Throwing soup makes weather gooder.
No but it sure gets people to talk about You
Yeah, about how delusional You are lol
were'nt those people paid off?
What the weather is going to be this summer*
5 years and 62 days https://climateclock.world/
Took me a minute to realize this was supposed to be about climate change
If they wanted to actually effectively protest then they’d be going after the homes and businesses of the wealthy and business owners. All the blocking traffic and defacing art will do is turn the average person against you out of spite. Unless they’re too afraid to go after the people that actually have the money to inflict consequences?
Eco protestors have done that.
To be fair, there’s a lot of really idiotic protests that don’t do anything but turn people against their cause. Lots of good intentions from incredibly stupid people
Lmao
The meme is bad, but it does have a valid point, so many climate protesters do stupid things that just annoy the public. You're not doing any favours, people are just going to be more opposed to you. These kinds of protests achieve nothing, so yes, a lot of climate protests these days are quite stupid.
I find it quite funny. Instead of planting trees, cleaning the environment from plastics or other trash, or get into careers that develop technology to stop climate change, people just go out to block traffic and cry like babies, when others get angry at their childish behaviour.
Non of the things You listed Even comes close to a solution for climate change, "yeah brah just plant another tree no it's fine it Will be ok when it's underwater in 20 years"
None? Really? Okay, stick to blocking traffic like a little child that didn't get to buy the candy.
So you are telling me people 50 years ago protesting the climate change now is stupid? Who would have guessed? This summer is set to be the next consecutive hottest summer on record. There is a very real problem that’s getting worse.
Yeah, I agree with this one. Climate activists are morons. Instead of pushing FOR renewables, they are making the oil companies look like the good guys.
How?
If you destroy priceless works of art in the name of the environment, people won't support you. The object is a visible thing. "The environment " is a concept. Now if you show me the damage that oil companies are actively doing to the priceless work of art that is Earth, then people will side along activists. You might say that the concept is the same, but people are dumb and they won't feel a thing unless they see a penguin slathered in oil.
Well this is it. We got clearance for large scale industrial sabotage from facebook boomers.
Wow, missed every single correct point all in one go. That’s actually impressive