• admiralteal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      No, that’s basically misinformation.

      There’s a major donor who’s the daughter of a family who’s previous generation made money on fossil fuels and has since divested and wants to distance themselves. Based on the fact that it is now clear how utterly destructive fossil fuels are.

      Conservatives / climate deniers use some parts of this fact as part of a campaign to discredit the organization and keep the media narrative around these protests on “oh, this style of protest does not match my aesthetics so it must be bad” instead of “the climate is on fire and the perpetrators are getting rich doing it and we should ALL be in the streets making noise and inconveniencing people until something is done.”

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Go picket gas stations. Same technique, similar level of disruption, but now the affected parties are actually part of the oil industry, and not just random people going about their lives.

        • admiralteal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          And how is picketing roads for cars any different than that?

          It’s fucking not and you know it. You just don’t like protests.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Picketing roads targets the general public. Obstructing traffic violates about half of the articles in the UN declaration of Human Rights.

            There are plenty of things they can do to draw attention to the issue and effect meaningful change. Get 20 people together with cans of spray paint. Paint a simple line separating the front and back halves of a car dealership.

            Then start posting flyers and social media posts, telling that dealership to move all of its ICE cars behind that line. Only electrics and hybrids are allowed in front of it. If you find any ICE cars in front of that line after a certain date, the dealership will be targeted for protests. Now that they are targeting an entity actually supporting the oil industry, the gloves can come off.

            Next day, go paint a couple more red lines at different dealerships.

            • admiralteal@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              I like the way you shifted from gas stations to car dealerships when you realized that your first attempt really was the same thing.

              And now you’re okay with vandalism and threats of property crime, but making some people a little late to work oh that’s unacceptable. So long as the protest has no effect on you personally you won’t ban it. Thanks.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                I didn’t shift anything; there is a big difference between targeting the general public and targeting gas stations. I’ve posted some thoughts on such approaches to gas stations in other comments.

                The point is that there are a whole host of viable targets to choose from. You don’t have to pick between just impossible to reach oil executives or random members of the general public. You can take aim at any number of viable targets in between, and take a wide variety of approaches toward them.

                You are correct, I have few qualms with minor property damage in the course of non-violent protest, where such damage is necessary and reasonable for achieving an important goal.

                The right to travel is sacrosanct. It is secondary only to the right to life itself.
                Impeding a person’s travel violates about half of the articles in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Yes, I have a big fucking problem with the cavalier attitude that JSO has toward stopping traffic.