I’d be much more likely to support and sympathize with a group blowing up fossil fuel infrastructure than standing in the fucking road, blocking traffic.
The clear answer is yes. This is exactly like the people who say they won’t be allies anymore if we LGBT+ people aren’t polite enough.
No halfway decent person who isn’t a steaming pile of excrement would be deterred by such a protest. That user’s take stems from discourse specifically designed to shut down protests, and it’s imperative that we do not let it work.
So no, the “dude” doesn’t have a “point.” It’s all horseshit. Shut them down immediately when they start flapping their pie hole with that shit.
No halfway decent person who isn’t a steaming pile of excrement would be deterred by such a protest.
You assume there are significantly more “halfway decent people” than “steaming piles of excrement”. If your assumption were true, we would have abandoned fossil fuels in favor of electric vehicles at least 40 years ago, and wouldn’t be having this argument today. Humanity leans far more to the “excrement” side of this particular debate.
You need the support of quite a lot of the people you describe as “steaming piles of excrement”, and all you’re doing is driving them straight to the first politician who says “I’ll lock up every last one of these asshole protesters as soon as they step in the street” while taking the money of every oil tycoon on the planet.
No, OP’s idea is infinitely superior to those jobless, orange-coated jackasses.
You don’t actually need public support to shut down fossil fuel infrastructure if your supporters are organized and willing to perish over it. The doomers actually do have large enough numbers that they could organize and set up their own militias if they really wanted to. Hell, the right wing nutjobs do it all the time.
Protests are supposed to raise awareness and motivate people to join their cause. These particular protests are turning away far more people from this cause than they are gaining.
These protests are ideal for promoting stricter laws against jaywalking and unlawful detention, but not so much for reducing the use of fossil fuels.
Oh, there is no implication about it: you need one hell of a justification to deliberately infringe on freedom of movement. It should be a criminal offense on the same level as “harassment” or “simple assault” to deliberately prevent someone from traveling. Each of these protesters should be charged with a separate count for each and every vehicle so delayed.
And, anyone so impeded should be justified in using any force necessary to end that unlawful impediment.
The problem is studies have demonstrated it’s counterproductive both in the popular debate and at driving policy, it can actually set back the green movement.
Just because you agree with their idealism doesn’t mean you need to agree with their behaviour, if I burn tires to get awareness for climate change that isn’t something a sensible person supports
When an oil refinery blows up and gasoline prices are suddenly 8x what they are now are you going to be saying “OMG why did they do this without any kind of warning”?
Consider the possibility that blocking traffic, throwing paint on paintings and yachts, the orange dust, etc. might be a warning. If your commute is being blocked, use that time to think about what your plan will be when you can no longer afford to put gasoline in your car. Put emotion aside and think about how you would logically solve that problem. Because you might have to soon enough.
So you’ve chosen your side in this. No one needs to feel bad about the problems it’ll cause for you if and when it comes time to start blowing up refineries.
Correct. The problems of a blown up refinery will affect the oil producers first. The problems of obstructing traffic will affect the oil producers never.
Picket the oil infrastructure. Make it expensive and unreliable, and consumers will gravitate away from it. The problems it will cause are not a big, but a feature.
It could be said that blocking traffic benefits oil producers by increasing gasoline usage and making people less sympathetic to the cause against them. Wasn’t there a case of someone in the oil industry paying people to protest in a similarly asinine way?
Oil prices rising won’t just affect cars that run on petroleum products. All your electricity bill will probably rise as well unless power in your area is 100% provided by renewable energy.
Even then, most renewable energy still rely on fossil fuel to run the vehicles for transporting and maintaining their infrastructure, so now even that cost would sharply increase.
Talking about EVs, just which EV companies have eliminated the involvement of any fossil fuel in their supply line? Unless we have enough of these supply lines, EV prices will also increase for the majority of people.
Very few electric plants burn petroleum products. Fossil fuel plants typically burn either coal or natural gas, neither of which would be significantly affected by disruption of oil-based infrastructure.
I’d be much more likely to support and sympathize with a group blowing up fossil fuel infrastructure than standing in the fucking road, blocking traffic.
Ohno, people who are being systemically killed are making you late for work! Time to turn against them
The dude has a point whether we like it or not. Public support makes a difference. Losing it is a cost. Is what they’re accomplishing worth that cost?
The clear answer is yes. This is exactly like the people who say they won’t be allies anymore if we LGBT+ people aren’t polite enough.
No halfway decent person who isn’t a steaming pile of excrement would be deterred by such a protest. That user’s take stems from discourse specifically designed to shut down protests, and it’s imperative that we do not let it work.
So no, the “dude” doesn’t have a “point.” It’s all horseshit. Shut them down immediately when they start flapping their pie hole with that shit.
You assume there are significantly more “halfway decent people” than “steaming piles of excrement”. If your assumption were true, we would have abandoned fossil fuels in favor of electric vehicles at least 40 years ago, and wouldn’t be having this argument today. Humanity leans far more to the “excrement” side of this particular debate.
You need the support of quite a lot of the people you describe as “steaming piles of excrement”, and all you’re doing is driving them straight to the first politician who says “I’ll lock up every last one of these asshole protesters as soon as they step in the street” while taking the money of every oil tycoon on the planet.
No, OP’s idea is infinitely superior to those jobless, orange-coated jackasses.
You don’t actually need public support to shut down fossil fuel infrastructure if your supporters are organized and willing to perish over it. The doomers actually do have large enough numbers that they could organize and set up their own militias if they really wanted to. Hell, the right wing nutjobs do it all the time.
If.
There are a lot of people willing to do jail time over it.
So they say.
There’s a lot of jail space to hold them.
Protests are supposed to be disruptive. Standing in traffic is disruptive. What’s the problem?
Protests are supposed to raise awareness and motivate people to join their cause. These particular protests are turning away far more people from this cause than they are gaining.
These protests are ideal for promoting stricter laws against jaywalking and unlawful detention, but not so much for reducing the use of fossil fuels.
anyone who’s not already on board the climate change cause is either too stupid or too rich to care. neither of which can be fixed.
None of that is a justification for obstructing traffic.
Implying you need much of a justification to block traffic
Oh, there is no implication about it: you need one hell of a justification to deliberately infringe on freedom of movement. It should be a criminal offense on the same level as “harassment” or “simple assault” to deliberately prevent someone from traveling. Each of these protesters should be charged with a separate count for each and every vehicle so delayed.
And, anyone so impeded should be justified in using any force necessary to end that unlawful impediment.
The problem is studies have demonstrated it’s counterproductive both in the popular debate and at driving policy, it can actually set back the green movement.
Just because you agree with their idealism doesn’t mean you need to agree with their behaviour, if I burn tires to get awareness for climate change that isn’t something a sensible person supports
deleted by creator
Yes, that’s an accurate summary of what I just said.
The only thing those idiots are likely to accomplish is stronger laws against jaywalking.
When an oil refinery blows up and gasoline prices are suddenly 8x what they are now are you going to be saying “OMG why did they do this without any kind of warning”?
Consider the possibility that blocking traffic, throwing paint on paintings and yachts, the orange dust, etc. might be a warning. If your commute is being blocked, use that time to think about what your plan will be when you can no longer afford to put gasoline in your car. Put emotion aside and think about how you would logically solve that problem. Because you might have to soon enough.
I use that time to think about bills classifying intentional obstruction of traffic to be unlawful detention.
So you’ve chosen your side in this. No one needs to feel bad about the problems it’ll cause for you if and when it comes time to start blowing up refineries.
Correct. The problems of a blown up refinery will affect the oil producers first. The problems of obstructing traffic will affect the oil producers never.
Picket the oil infrastructure. Make it expensive and unreliable, and consumers will gravitate away from it. The problems it will cause are not a big, but a feature.
It could be said that blocking traffic benefits oil producers by increasing gasoline usage and making people less sympathetic to the cause against them. Wasn’t there a case of someone in the oil industry paying people to protest in a similarly asinine way?
deleted by creator
Haha so you’re a racist asshole that expects people to be sympathetic to your personal hardships? You don’t deserve any sympathy.
deleted by creator
Yeah I get that you’re an asshole that doesn’t believe in anything. You just like hurting other people and pick whatever cause allows you to do so.
Given you’re a professional asshole, why should anyone give a shit about you?
Why not support both?
Giving the general public and the oil companies a common enemy. It’s a bold move, Cotton.
Until gasoline became unavailable (while still being needed by billions of people) because of terrorism instead of a more reasonable approach.
Gasoline won’t become unavailable. There is too much redundancy built into the production and distribution networks.
What would happen is the price of gasoline would rise, which would further drive electric vehicle adoption.
OP’s approach is infinitely superior to harassing drivers directly.
Oil prices rising won’t just affect cars that run on petroleum products. All your electricity bill will probably rise as well unless power in your area is 100% provided by renewable energy.
Even then, most renewable energy still rely on fossil fuel to run the vehicles for transporting and maintaining their infrastructure, so now even that cost would sharply increase.
Talking about EVs, just which EV companies have eliminated the involvement of any fossil fuel in their supply line? Unless we have enough of these supply lines, EV prices will also increase for the majority of people.
Very few electric plants burn petroleum products. Fossil fuel plants typically burn either coal or natural gas, neither of which would be significantly affected by disruption of oil-based infrastructure.
Natural gas is a petroleum product.
🤔 Okay, let’s hack the banks, redistribute all of the money electronically and then pay for electric infrastructure ourselves.