World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Evidence suggests that disruptive protests actually help, rather than hinder organisations like JSO:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/07/disruptive-protest-helps-not-hinders-activists-cause-experts-say
https://theconversation.com/climate-change-radical-activists-benefit-social-movements-history-shows-why-181977
https://theconversation.com/radical-environmentalists-are-fighting-climate-change-so-why-are-they-persecuted-107211
It's all about raising awareness and facilitating discussions.
It would be in the oil industries interest to fund agent provocateurs to become lightning rods for both willing protestors and public anger.
Just Stop Oil's primary source of funding was donations from the US-based Climate Emergency Fund. Through that fund, a notable donor to the group has been Aileen Getty, a descendant of the Getty family which founded the Getty Oil company.
Sure, it's not a great look I concur
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/22/just-stop-oil-van-gogh-national-gallery-aileen-getty
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/29/just-stop-oils-protests-funded-by-us-philanthropists
however we're talking about 2% of their overall funding in 2023:
https://time.com/6334072/just-stop-oil-climate-change-activist-group/
I'd argue that money from a climate fund that was cofounded by the daughter of a oil baron (who appears to be something of a environmental activist), whilst not ideal is a fair way removed from the idea that they are funded by the petrol companies as agent provocateurs.
Also, as I linked the evidence suggest they work, so if the likes of Esso are funding them it's not their greatest work. Who knows. I believe they get a bad wrap. If anything I imagine it's more likely the petrol companies are the ones pushing the negative narratives around groups like JSO to try and mute their effectiveness and turn the public against them.
The oil companies could fund individual agent provocateurs of JSO directly. Whoever decided to attack the general public is doing big oil a big favor.
Maybe, maybe not. Without clear evidence it's all supposition. All we know is that, whilst people may not believe it, their actions are effective.
Their actions are effective at getting legislative action against protests and impeding travel. Their effects on stopping oil, however, have been somewhere between "completely ineffective" and "counterproductive".
The reason people have a hard time believing their actions are effective is because their actions are not at all effective.
They would raise more awareness and facilitate more productive discussion and alienate fewer people and have a tangible, measurable effect by taking direct action against car dealership and gas stations.
The kind of "discussion" they have most "facilitated" is how to increase the penalties for impeding traffic. Their only "success" has been winning enough support for legislators to increase penalties and enforcement for "impeding traffic"
I mean, sure, but again the evidence suggest otherwise: https://www.apollosurveys.org/social-change-and-protests/
And as the articles I originally linked above shows the general public may think otherwise, which is understandable.
then why not embody the change you'd like to see. if it's truly a better way, go nuts bro.
because from here it just looks like "why don't they quit protesting and start blowing up oil facilities lol"
When black people fought for civil rights, they went where their civil rights were being infringed upon, they exercised their rights anyway, and showed the world the infringement. They didn't go into black communities and hassle black people just going about their days to "bring awareness" to the problem of civil rights infringement. Because that would be stupid. You don't harass the victims of infringement. You go after the perpetrators.
Now, the oil industry is victimizing the general public, and JSO... Is also victimizing the general public.
Fuck. That. Shit.
Target the oil industry, and get the fuck out of the street.
Nope. Targeting the industry alone isn't going to change people's way of thinking. Consumers who face no consequences for using a fuel that's rapidly warming and destroying the ecosystem need waking up too.
Sounds like this upsets you, boo fuckin' hoo.
And keep the black struggle for civil rights out of your fucking mouth, their work deserves better than you using them to shill for oil comfort.
Switching to an electric car doesn't get them out of a JSO-sponsored traffic jam. Nothing about the JSO actions provides any incentive for the consumer to actually do anything about oil.
You take out the gas stations, you'll actually be inconveniencing the consumers who still use them. And only those consumers. Everyone else is untouched. You're also promoting the remaining shops that don't offer fossil fuels, by removing their competition. You won't be interfering with the ambulances and electric cars either.
Consumers will get the hint that oil is under indictment, and factor that into their next car buying decision. That doesn't happen when an electric car doesn't get them past a JSO traffic jam.
You approach the whole issue as if it were just up to consumers to stop oil by changing their habits. It isn't. Switching to an EV isn't a solution when you're still paying taxes that go into subsidizing fossil fuels. (Switching to an EV for getting around in a city isn't a solution anyways, use public transit or get a bicycle). Consumers won't stop consuming oil until the full cost (including all externalities) of it is shown in the price tag. Action is needed at the political level, and that won't happen unless enough noise is made regarding the issue. That's what JSO is doing.
FTFY.
I'll note that nobody in this thread has yet made a single comment promoting a specific political action against oil. Your last comment comes the closest, but even that doesn't even qualify as a "concept of a plan".
JSO isn't inspiring people to talk about oil. They are inspiring people to talk about the limits of free speech, and the preservation of the right to travel. They've inspired legislators to act, just not in any way that would actually affect the oil industry. JSO has certainly accomplished something with their antics, just not anything that they've set out to do.
Again, direct action against the oil industry. Exploit it's soft targets, raise the cost of oil, make alternatives relatively cheaper, and watch the problem disappear.
You do realize that you replied to a comment just now that raised the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, and the effect those have on the price and thus consumption of oil? Just ending those subsidies would already have a dramatic effect.
It's true that the discussion is currently centered on freedom of speech, most notably because of the most recent developments, but the issue that is being protested is constantly present in the background. I'm betting that after the criminalization of protests stops being news, that issue gets back into the limelight.
Direct action against fossil fuel infrastructure would be less in the public due to a less central location. Sitting on a street works because it's a nuisance to many, thus generating a lot of interest among the press and that way the message gets amplified. Gaining publicity via industrial sabotage would be difficult unless they did somehting very drastic, which would only turn them from a mere "nuicanse" into actual villains in the press. Especially so if some such drastic measure leads to the unintended death or injury of a worker at a refinery etc. This would also turn the fossil fuel companies from crooks into victims and I'm betting that they'd also try to frame it as sabotage hurting the blue collar workers they employ. All this while affecting the actual price of oil in a miniscule way at most and alienating the majority of their members who don't accept these acts. Nonviolence is held in high regard.
The electric cars are powered by gas and coal in the uk. We are a long way from pure renewable electricity and between mining and shipping metals, steel, and tyres they're not quite the perfect green vehicles they're presented as.
how about you do you and fuck off.
Sorry. Can't. Stuck in traffic.