97
Climate Activists Spray-Paint Darwin’s Grave in London to Draw Attention to Climate Disaster (www.democracynow.org)
submitted 4 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 21 points 4 days ago

Glad for these guys. Their protests are the only ones that consistently get headlines and they make a point that nothing they do is permanent or a public danger.

I used to be more concerned about “le optics” of this but have come to the conclusion I was just being reactionary where I didn’t have to be.

[-] Sporkbomber@lemm.ee 5 points 4 days ago

"Their protests are the only ones that consistently get headlines and they make a point that nothing they do is permanent or a public danger."

No public danger?

Like when they blocked a roadway and kept an ambulance from moving a patient? Or when one of their protests caused enough traffic to delay a responding ambulance resulting in 2 deaths?

Or just in general figuring the best way to get across their message is to sit in a roadway.

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 21 points 4 days ago

Cite your sources babes cuz it looks like you are repeating right wing propaganda straight from the Daily Mail and The Sun 😉

About the incident of the two deaths: Just Stop Oil didn't delay us getting to M20 crash, says ambulance service

[-] november@lemmy.vg 1 points 2 days ago

Are you gonna acknowledge that this didn't happen or are you done replying?

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 32 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Not graffiti on smooth stonework! Winston, fetch my clutching pearls!

[-] Covenant@sh.itjust.works 24 points 4 days ago

And again they are getting attention.

[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.vg 11 points 4 days ago

It's amazing and terrible that so few people are getting how this works.

The climate going to shit should be the #1 news story on TV and the internet everywhere. Yes, it's more important than money.

If everyone's just OKAY with living for the short-term regardless of the risk of edging closer to extinction, then we need to all be upfront and make that a petition, a referendum, a signed suicide letter.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 5 points 4 days ago

I strongly suspect a funding channel originating from fossil-fuel producers.

[-] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Okay, assume that's the case.

So the fuck what?

I keep seeing counterpoints that assume that intent informs effectiveness, when that's demonstrably just not the case. If your statement is relevant, that means you must be able to draw a causal link between that hypothesis being true and the campaign being ineffective.

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 3 points 4 days ago

Succinctly put, thanks!

[-] kapulsa@feddit.org 13 points 4 days ago

This was very brave. I applaud these activists. We should all do the same until politics listen and act accordingly.

[-] TommySoda@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

Every time I see something like this my brain always assumes it's people that actually have the opposite goal and are just trying to make actual activism look bad. Like how all of the "stop smoking" ads are made by tobacco companies. But in all honesty it's probably just me overthinking it and these guys are just dumb.

[-] dukepontus@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

Their tactic is getting climate change in the news headlines. That tactic is working.

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

What "stop smoking" ads are made by tobacco companies? When googling, I found a "Philip Morris-funded Foundation for a Smoke-free World", but nothing about ads.

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago

TRUTH was funded by tobacco giants—because the government made them. It was a settlement agreement, if I’m remembering correctly.

[-] TommySoda@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Honestly I think they make those TRUTH ads as cringy as possible to make people hate them. Every time I see one I hate it so much it makes me want to start smoking again.

[-] x00z@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

I'm sad that even though I'm heavily in support of climate activisim this kind of useless stuff happens.

[-] jkintree@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 days ago

They succeeded in getting attention. Look at all the comments posted here. The issue needs attention. The issue also needs fact checking. I was pleased with fact checking I got from diffy.chat about the wildfires in LA County. Maybe fact checking bots should be included in online discussion forums.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago

The bots are mostly langauge models, not knowledge models. I don't regard them as sufficiently reliable to do any kind of fact checking.

[-] jkintree@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago

The language model for diffy.chat has been trained not to respond from its own learned parameters, but to use the Diffbot external knowledge base. Each sentence or paragraph in a Diffy response has a link to the source of the information.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago

That's still not into the realm where I trust it; the underlying model is a language model. What you're describing is a recipe for ending up with paltering a significant fraction of the time.

[-] jkintree@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago

Did you even try diffy.chat to test how factually correct it is and how well it cites its sources? How good does it have to be to be useful? How bad does it have to be to be useless?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago

I tried it. It produces reasonably accurate results a meaningful fraction of the time. The problem is that when it's wrong, it still uses authoritative language, and you can't tell the difference without underlying knowledge.

[-] jkintree@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago

There does need to be a mechanism to keep the human in the loop to correct the knowledge base by people who have the underlying knowledge. Perhaps notification needs to be sent to people who have previously viewed the incorrect information when a correction is made.

[-] doctortofu@reddthat.com 5 points 4 days ago

Vandalizing graves and museums - what a great way to get supporters and make people sympathetic to your cause...

I have further ideas - how about beating some pre-schoolers or burning a homeless shelter to protest global warming? Or perhaps throwing mud at the elderly? Drowning some puppies? Since clearly these people believe all publicity is good publicity, think how much buzz that would generate!

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 36 points 4 days ago

There's a fair bit of evidence that it works. That's why people keep on doing it.

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 4 points 4 days ago

Academia is such a blessing I love that we have this data

[-] anton 31 points 4 days ago

What should they do?
Protest in the designated area so that we ignore them more easily? But not somewhere where it blocks cars? Maybe stop chanting to keep the noise down?
The normal protests don't seem to work.

[-] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

They could attack the actual guilty parties. I remember a group recently getting on a roof of a manufacturing building, for a company who sold weapons to Israel, and sprayed stuff inside to contaminate their cleanrooms and production areas. That's pretty rad.

Edit: I had trouble finding an article with video of the roof breach, but I did find a longer video than what was previously posted, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqjdfT5IaOE

[-] doctortofu@reddthat.com 2 points 4 days ago

How about actually protesting something that's related to their cause? Blocking a highway is absolutely one of those. Or, if you want to throw paint at something, how about throwing it at an office of an oil company or a car/private jet of a CEO and not on a fucking grave?

I never said they should not protest at all or not inconvenience anyone, but vandalism of random property or cultural heritage? No, I will not support that.

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 26 points 4 days ago
[-] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

Sure, I expect a non-zero number of people whined about it. However, that article doesn't mention any. Good on those protesters.

[-] november@lemmy.vg 12 points 4 days ago

Yeah, since they've solely done completely harmless shit up until now, why don't they just murder some dogs? That's the same thing!

[-] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 3 points 4 days ago

The short-term survival and domination of the shittiest species ... the sequel he never published.

this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
97 points (100.0% liked)

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

5514 readers
300 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net