871
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] rikudou@lemmings.world 240 points 1 year ago

Nice, seems like we're finally getting to the point where we stop blaming the common people for climate change.

[-] Pisodeuorrior@kbin.social 94 points 1 year ago

Also, this seems like a much, MUCH better PR move than throwing paint at masterpieces in fucking museums.
I don't know who thought that was something that would have moved the public opinion towards their cause.

[-] acannan@programming.dev 39 points 1 year ago

Well it did seem to do a good job bringing attention to their cause. And, the worst damage incurred over the dozens of demonstrations was some minor frame damage. Imo it was kind of a brilliant scheme to get worldwide attention for the price of some tomato soup

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They were throwing paint into corporate offices and CEO's cars at the same time. The media chose to put the art vandalism on blast. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out the art vandalism was the idea of a corporate mole.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Mateoto@lemmy.world 110 points 1 year ago

Absolutely, targeting activism towards the lifestyles of the rich is a crucial step in addressing the issue of higher CO2 emissions and climate change. It's not about vilifying individuals, but rather recognizing that certain lifestyles contribute significantly to environmental harm.

Focusing solely on the lower and middle class isn't the solution, as they are the ones who often bear the brunt of climate change impacts and economic adjustments. What might be considered "luxury" for them is often just basic necessities, and their livelihoods are directly affected by climate-related changes.

On the other hand, the elite and super elites can afford to make substantial changes to their lifestyles without sacrificing their basic needs. Cutting back on private flights, yachts, and excessive consumption won't significantly impact their quality of life. Their choices to reduce their environmental footprint can send a powerful message and create a domino effect, encouraging positive change on a larger scale.

This doesn't mean demonizing anyone; it's about promoting awareness and responsibility. We need systemic changes, and these should start from the top down. By targeting the source of excessive consumption and promoting sustainable choices among the rich, we can create a more equitable and sustainable future for everyone.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 73 points 1 year ago

I'm ok with demonizing wealth hoarders as individuals. More than ok, actually.

We should be much, much more than just name calling.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Considering they have armed private security forces, there's not much more we can do but namecall the bastards.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

Golf? I need to do some research. I'd be lining up more useless garbage like cruise ships, coal energy, gas powered mowers, and all of the 'recyclable' garbage that isn't. Also styrofoam. Fuck styrofoam.

[-] 7Sea_Sailor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 49 points 1 year ago

The gripe with golf usually lies within the incredibly high amounts of water needed to keep the courses green.

[-] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

That makes sense. Places like Arizona make my jaw drop.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sacha@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

Golf can use a terrible amount of water, plus keeping it mowed, and cutting forests for it. Places like Canada or the UK might be fine if it's not a drought year. But there's golf courses as far as Mexico. There's places in Mexico that is so dry outside of the summer months that golf courses would use a disgusting amount of water to keep the greens... green... there was a golf course in Mexico I went to that only bothered with the putting area and a bit around that. Everything else was dirt. It wasn't that pleasant of an experience because you do kick up dust when teeing off and whatnot. However, no way to lose your ball I suppose. Still, the water they needed just for the putting area must have been disgusting.

[-] Uranium3006@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago

we need to change golf so it respects the land the course is built on, and doesn't try to make everything look like scotland. keep the green as-is but make the fairway something that doesn't use water, fits the local landscape (maybe have different solutions for different environments) and is just as playable as fairway grass. leave the out of bounds areas untouched. I think golf could serve to gain from forming itself to the terrain it's played on, rather than the other way around

[-] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Scotland doesn't and shouldn't look anything like a golf course, hell the entire image of Scotland thats sold to the outside worlds is basically entierly artifically sculpted and maintained landscapes that continue to choke out our native species.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

The vast majority of courses are this way. The PGA level courses and private clubs are the main problems. For example in Florida many courses are part of treating waste water and act as a flood control for the surrounding condos.

[-] Tigbitties@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

we need to change golf so it respects the land

But then you lose the feeling of entitlement.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] bamfic@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

I remember being in LA during the Rodney King Riots in 1992. White people (especially privileged leftists) were all clutching their pearls, wondering why black folks were attacking their innocent Korean merchant neighbors and dragging random white people out of their cars and beating them, instead of going to rich people's neighborhoods and attacking them, or attacking the systems of oppression. Clearly these white folks did not understand how oppression works.

When you're the victim of random violence, and have reached your breaking point, and don't know what else to do, you respond with random violence, against whatever and whomever is nearby.

Black folks in Compton had no way to get to the racist white power structure. It was insulated from their rage.

Can XR act against Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk? The board of Exxon? No way, they're not accessible. So they attack whatever they can reach. The world is burning and they're pissed off. Their targets may or may not make sense strategically. They aren't trying to influence people or win friends. They're just infuriated. Know the difference, try to understand with empathy.

[-] eugenia@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

Sorry, but in my book, nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies random violence. Your justification of it sickens me and I'm surprised that you got so upvoted. I've been on the breaking point from things that were happening inside my own home as a kid, but I never took it on my little brother, or other kids. Instead, I was taking it against the actual aggressor (my father), even if it resulted in more beatings and hairline broken jaws, and put the knife, or the gun on my head. So, yes, I've been through some shit myself. But I protected my brother and my mother as much as I could. Doing random violence, as you described it, against people who might have their own cross to bear is not justified. EVER.

And yes. They CAN act against Bezos, Musk, and the board of Exxon. They can easily find where these people are, paparazzis certainly can. Every second day we have pictures of Bezos with his darling gf. Get organized so the locals can take it against him when he visits somewhere. But you don't act against your fellow citizen who is also a victim of oppression and climate change, or destroy classic works of art. What kind of BS is that??

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 17 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


BARCELONA, Spain (AP) — Climate activists have spraypainted a superyacht, blocked private jets from taking off and plugged holes in golf courses this summer as part of an intensifying campaign against the emissions-spewing lifestyles of the ultrawealthy.

Climate activism has intensified in the past few years as the planet warms to dangerous levels, igniting more extreme heat, floods, storms and wildfires around the world.

Tactics have been getting more radical, with some protesters gluing themselves to roads, disrupting high-profile sporting events like golf and tennis and even splashing famous pieces of artwork with paint or soup.

They’re now turning their attention to the wealthy, after long targeting some of the world’s most profitable companies – oil and gas conglomerates, banks and insurance firms that continue to invest in fossil fuels.

“We do not point the finger at the people but at their lifestyle, the injustice it represents,” said Karen Killeen, an Extinction Rebellion activist who was involved in protests in Ibiza, Spain, a favorite summer spot for the wealthy.

He published estimates of top billionaires’ annual emissions in 2021 and found that a superyacht — with permanent crew, helicopter pad, submarines and pools — emits about 7,020 tons of carbon dioxide a year, over 1,500 times higher than a typical family car.


The original article contains 873 words, the summary contains 212 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Amnesius@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago
[-] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

There's an enormous gap between private jets & yachts, and golf. Most cities have municipal golf courses that are affordable and they even rent out clubs. Golf is a relaxing sport that preserves green spaces that would otherwise be parking lots. I've seen a lot of hate against golf on this site already though, so I guess it's fashionable to hate it now.

[-] nadram@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

It wouldn't necessarily be a parking lot though would it? That's just convenient for your argument. The truth is it would be extra easy and cheap to turn golf courses into public parks, with local trees and flowers instead of water guzzling grass. That would improve weather events, wildlife and human lives' quality in the area.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] goaskalice3@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

When I was in Africa they wanted to tear down a huge forest to build a golf course so tourists would come

[-] AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Golf in the desert is a ridiculous luxury, even if it's city-owned. They tell us not to flush our toilets, but dump gallons per hour into those short little greens.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MTK@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

"The yachts are just a small issue, focuse on the bigger issues first!" Said the yacht owner.

"There are so little private jets, you should focuse on bigger issues first!" Said the jet owner.

There's an enormous gap between private jets & yachts, and golf. Most cities have municipal golf courses that are affordable and they even rent out clubs. Golf is a relaxing sport that preserves green spaces that would otherwise be parking lots. I've seen a lot of hate against golf on this site already though, so I guess it's fashionable to hate it now.

Said the golf player.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

Good. More of this please.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
871 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39032 readers
1939 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS