• mipadaitu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      They didn’t destroy anything, the paint can be removed without ruining the site, and they brought more visibility than sitting around with signs.

      I don’t have a problem with this.

  • HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    No, Just Stop Oil is not an “activist” group. They’re in cahoots with the enemy. They’re defamation, and their intent is to give the radical right something to point to.

    Just Stop Just Stop Oil.

    EDIT: There are waaaaaaay too many assumptions happening in this thread.

      • DistractedDev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        There’s no proof but what else could be these people’s problem? They have to know what they’re doing to the image of people who do care about the environment. It’s not like they’re helping. I don’t get it.

          • DistractedDev@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            All I’m really trying to say is their methods make the environmental movements look bad. I hate that. I want things to get better. I don’t think they’re doing anything to help that. Go after something relevant.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              MLK’s protests made the civil rights movement look bad. People fucking hated him at the time, despite how history has whitewashed him.

              Every effective protest pisses reactionaries and “moderates” off. If it doesn’t piss them off, it isn’t effective.

              • fishos@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Except this doesn’t make me care about oil one damn bit. What I do care about it harsh penalties for the perpetrators(including community service and paying for the damage to be undone) and protecting heritage sites like this from other shitty humans. Its not activism, it’s vandalism. It has nothing to do with oil. It would be the same as setting the Mona Lisa on fire and screaming about oil. It’s just unhinged.

    • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      “Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers” is what I’m hearing.

      Sorry. But as climate change gets worse and corporations continue to annihilate the living beings on this planet while governments uphold their ability to do so, the protests will only become more radical. We’re long past the point of polite protests, and they didn’t work.

      • zaph@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m sorry dog but spray painting an ancient wonder isn’t an environmental protest.

        • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s corn starch. The ancient wonder suffers more defacement in the form of erosion because it rains every 4 seconds in the UK. Stonehenge will be perfectly okay.

      • DistractedDev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Radical in my mind is burning down an oil plant. Going after a piece of history is disgusting. At least ruffle the feathers of the people you’re standing up to.

        • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’ve read the other replies to my comment, but yours is the only counter that I mostly agree with.

          Yes, going after an oil plant would certainly be a much more radical form of protest. The main issue is that targeting something like that carries massive risk and is unfathomably challenging. That isn’t to say they shouldn’t do it though.

          My comment was more a response to some of the general negative sentiment that I see in response to other protests that are disruptive. It’s usually reactionary claims of “you’re making people mad, so it’s counterproductive”, while ignoring the fact that nothing else has worked.

            • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Protests will always incite rage. The question is “is it justified?”. In this case, sure, but your unhinged comment that started this thread is just reactionary drivel.

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Normally I’m tepid on this kinda headline getting, but I feel like Stonehenge of all things is not the ideal target for the supposed intent of these kinds of protests.

    • Dekkia@this.doesnotcut.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The intent is to get people to talk about them and their message.

      Well known monuments are great for that kinda stuff.

      • fishos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, we’re all talking about what unhinged dicks they are and wishing for them to be disbanded. Great job!