412
submitted 2 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] metaStatic@kbin.earth 64 points 2 months ago

if you're spending the rest of your life in jail anyway might as well stop protesting and start taking direct action. This is self defense.

[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 61 points 2 months ago

Questioning the staus quo is the single greatest crime.

[-] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 51 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

handing them prison terms akin to rapists

If this was the case, over 99% of them would be free to go.

I'd say it's 100% rage bait to include rapists in the title, but it's worse - it's a flat out but very deliberate lie made up and perpetuated by patriarchal rape culture to give the illusion that all crime is treated the same, and that there are significantly fewer rapes than there really are (E: because, in this lie, rapists are not only generally convicted but seriously punished, and those who believe it, use the low numbers of convicted rapists as evidence of it not being the serious and widespread problem that it is, rather than of the system being complicit).

A more accurate headline should be: patriarchal pro oil "justice" system punishes anti-oil protestors significantly more harshly than it does rapists

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 23 points 2 months ago

I think you’re giving CNN too much credit. So much so that it dips into conspiracy logic.

Never over complicate and attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance and greed. Why would they do this? Because it’s clickbait. It’s a jarring word, and they want people to visit the site. Rapist are under convicted, yes. But to spin an entire web about the wording in the headline? C’mon. The body uses the suggested sentences for each crime as reference, which is why they could use the attention grabbing headline.

[-] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 months ago

It's called bias, it doesn't have to be intentional to exist and be pervasive.

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I get and understand the concept of what you’re trying to say, but it’s more than a bit of a reach to say it’s in play here, I think. Not fitting in the complicated history of untested rape kits and leniency in sentencing based on the rapists’ backgrounds and the socioeconomic backgrounds and skin color of the victims into a headline about climate protesters having the book thrown at them isn’t bias. It’s just kinda superfluous information in regards to the topic at hand.

I get it, it’s a massive problem. And one that desperately needs to be addressed. I just don’t think it extends to this article. Bias can be subtle and often is. And I understand that trying to point it out can be like trying to catch smoke in a butterfly net. But the subtlety of it cuts both ways, and I just think you happen to be on the wrong side of that divide. Just my opinion, though. That’s the great thing about subtlety and nuance, it’s up for discussion.

[-] RandAlThor@lemmy.ca 34 points 2 months ago

The laws were passed under conservatives weren't they? Tells you all there's you need to know. All they care about are the rich and corporations which are owned by the rich.

[-] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 months ago

Which is widely know but surprisingly well supported by a vast number of voters.

[-] strugglingtiger@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago

Because everyone seems to have it in their mind that they too could be this wealthy... ironically, because the wealthy told them they could be.

[-] hungryphrog 31 points 2 months ago

how dare these pesky protestors midly inconvience people >:(

[-] hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

I feel like climate protestors in the UK lost a lot of sympathy when they started attempting to do things like deface the Magna Carta and Stonehenge.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 31 points 2 months ago

For what it's worth, most of those JSO protests have been done in a way that would not damage the actual object. Like the Stonehenge one, it wasn't paint, it was cornflour and food colouring that would just come off in the rain (and was, in the end, removed with just a leafblower). The Magna Carta one actually was doing damage though.

Regardless of that, I don't personally think that they are effective protests. They're far too easy to frame as mindless vandalism.

[-] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 3 points 2 months ago

The lassie in the thumbnail looks like she could be removed with a leaf blower too lol

Definitely feeds her cat on leaves

[-] hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Mindless vandalism by rich kids who would have gotten stuffed years ago if it weren't for their immense privilege.

[-] lobut@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 months ago

How dare they use their privilege to bring attention to the greatest threat to humanity....

[-] FundMECFSResearch 8 points 2 months ago

Yeah. Would have been better if they just let a crisis that disproportionately affect poor people unfold /s

[-] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

Given the backlash against environmental protestors blocking traffic, can you imagine the backlash against the oil industry when an unusually severe storm or flood or landslide blocks traffic?!

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

In late July, a London court found Gethin and four other members of the Just Stop Oil activist group guilty of “conspiring intentionally to cause a public nuisance,” after recruiting protesters to climb structures along the M25 — a major ring road around London — bringing traffic to a standstill in parts over four days in November 2022

Regardless of your opinion on these particular cases, Just Stop Oil's tactics are probably among the least effective protest strategies ever

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 38 points 2 months ago

Shutting down oil refineries seems like a very effective form of protest to me.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 4 points 2 months ago

That stuff is cool, but I'm pretty sure they're referring to stuff like throwing soup over famous paintings (or rather, the glass covering famous paintings). I have to agree with them if that is what they mean; these actions are far far too easy to present as just vandalism for its own sake, and there's no obvious connection between the targets and the intention of the protests.

[-] astro_ray@piefed.social 5 points 2 months ago

Maybe, but they attract attention. This kind of attention, although bad, will bring people to talk.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 3 points 2 months ago

The problem is it just brings people to talk about how awful these climate protestors are for vandalising things people feel culturally attached to. The conversation is never about climate change.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 4 points 2 months ago

It does help that "actually they haven't destroyed a single work of art" is a pretty good entry point to explain how protests are just a way of displaying group outrage

Civil rights were won by relentlessly challenging the courts, exhausting the public so much it blew back on the government administration, and with the armed black Panthers present as an implicit threat - "if you decide to throw out the law, so will we"

[-] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 months ago

It does bring up the topic of climate change several times, and yet's still more than the protest that do happen, but you never hear about because they don't inconvenience anyone. There have been plenty of instances of protests vandalizing rich people's yachts, for example, but that doesn't make the headlines and people don't care, so no attention is raised and it's ultimately meaningless.

[-] als 1 points 1 month ago

Just Stop Oil's first protests were directly shutting down oil terminals, then oil companies bought private laws to stop that so they moved on to other, at the time legal, methods such as "slow marching". These were then also made illegal.

[-] riodoro1@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

Said a person addicted to their car.

this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
412 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5237 readers
391 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS