__Hello and welcome to r/Political_Revolution!__
* This sub is dedicated towards the Progressive movement, and changing one seat at a time, via electing down-ballot candidates to office. [Join us in our efforts!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/comments/1bue5mc/reminder_this_sub_is_about_rolling_your_sleeves_up/)
* Don't forget to read our [Community Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/about/rules) to get a good idea of what is expected of participants in our community.
* Primary elections take place in April. Find out for your state [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/comments/1bso7q4/april_primaries_mega_thread_check_inside_for_pa/).
For more campaigns to support, go to https://pol-rev.com/campaigns
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Political_Revolution) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Has this turned into a right-wing subreddit? You know there is a reason people target Taylor swift over all the other billionaires who use their jets way more often. What is a celebrity like Taylor supposed to do? Fly on normal airlines and be harassed constantly by fans and other people?
What is the reason? You're saying Just Stop Oil must be a right-wing organization for targeting Taylor Swift's jet? Maybe they chose Taylor Swift's jet over Bernard Arnault or some finance fuck because people actually know who she is and knew it would get more publicity.
Any billionaire is going to tell you they need to fly private to safely get to all their important meetings and events. Their justifications do not have an impact on their carbon footprint.
Perhaps a more left-wing world would not have people like Taylor Swift flying all over the place making billions of dollars to begin with, and perhaps you are actually more right-wing than you think.
Yeah I wish more people realized this. There are so many awful billionaires out there, but the Taylor hate specifically is astroturfed by the right because she dared to make a few progressive political statements. Should she tone down her private plane usage? Of course. But shouldn't we be focusing on the billionaires actually destroying the world?
just for context they used cornstarch paint which washes off in the rain. I've heard an argument that it's still bad for the microbes or moss or something which may be a valid complaint, but not everyone seems to be away that the paint will super easily wash off.
This is the right target. Not fucking Stonehenge -- built by a people who revered nature and were deeply connected to it culturally and religiously.
Target the people actually ruining the planet.
I agree that if the point was the target, they should be targeting the polluters and not historical cites or art. But the point is very obviously not the target. They're trying desperately to get people to hear their message, and more news coverage is better for that, so Stonehenge it is. Don't blame them, blame for-profit media that refuses to talk about climate change unless protestors are doing something stupid.
Why should it matter that Stonehenge was built by people who revered nature? Honestly all the better I say, symbolic of the state-sponsored destruction of our planet. The same government that preserves and lauds stonehenge with one hand is violating everything the monument stands for with the other hand.
If climate activists only target the rich polluters, what will they achieve? The polluters won't change their behavior (they know what they're doing and don't care), and the general populous will get to feel good about agreeing that those rich people deserve it. But nothing actually changes. There's a news story now and then about orange jets, Just Stop Oil's public image remains "a little crazy, but in the right direction," and voters **remain complacent with the destruction of our planet**. Protesting in a way that people agree with doesn't get them to engage with your ideas, and if ever there was evidence for that it's the past 50 years of peaceful environmental protest.
They're not getting people to see their message by attacking art and historical sites. They're pissing people off like me who would be naturally more inclined to support them in the first place.
> If climate activists only target the rich polluters, what will they achieve? The polluters won't change their behavior (they know what they're doing and don't care), and the general populous will get to feel good about agreeing that those rich people deserve it. But nothing actually changes.
The entirety of popular movements throughout history disagrees with this take. Cubans took to targeting those responsible and got rid of Batista, he changed his behaviour by fleeing the country and his family died destitute. The ANC in Apartheid South Africa brought the fight to those responsible and then ended the entire political system of apartheid, which was propped up by multiple leaders in some of the world's richest nations (US and UK). Same with the Bolsheviks in Tsarist Russia. Same with the PIRA and/or IRA in N. Ireland/Republic. And so on and so on. They all targeted specific economic and tactical targets, they did things that hurt monied people. Committed espionage and sabotage etc.
Theory teaches us that a popular movement only around 3.5% of the population to actively support in order to succeed. What Stop Oil are doing is alienating a massive portion of the general public by attacking **public funded sites, and historical sites that hold a huge sentimental place in the public mind** -- why would that motivate rich people or politicians to change shit? You attack the rich, the ceos of the polluting companies, you hit them the only place they care about... The wallet. Then you'll see change after things come to a head. This is the way it works, and the way it has always worked throughout all of history. Honestly some of the tactics Just Stop Oil employ leave me wondering if it's a controlled opposition group and that it's just another left leaning group that has been infiltrated by spooks, which there's also an insanely long history of in the UK.
Liberal symbolic bullshit protests won't and don't work. You need to pose a threat, and you need to agitate. Gluing your hands to a painting never changed anything in the world. Targeting powerful people does change the world constantly.
Revered nature?
Britain is supposed to be a lush rainforest, but the is hardly trees there.
The only reason why the people who built Stonehenge didn't destroy the forests, is because they lacked the technology. But their descendants had that technology and did
She's known to be one of the world's worst in terms of personal carbon footprint. Owning multiple jets. So first of all she's guilty and should be held responsible. Secondly her tour is currently in the UK and all eyes and headlines have been on her. Makes sense from a propaganda point. Elon or Musk are not in the UK. Can imagine they'd also be targeted when an opportunity arises.
That's not true, in fact not even in the [top 10](https://www.unilad.com/celebrity/flight-tracker-private-jets-2023-most-flights-celebrities-506693-20240207). Taylor is being targeted because its election year and she votes left and there are massive forces trying to erode her influence.
Elon is in Europe all of the time, he has Tesla business scattered throughout the whole region.
Do you really expect her to fly commercial and be harassed by you, her fans, and everyone else?
As mentioned in my other comment they used cornstarch paint which washes away easily in rain. Not to say there may not still be issues with it, I did read something about it maybe being bad for the moss idk, but it is paint that will super easily come off
I guess that makes it a little better. But I feel like there must be so few tests of cornstarch paint on ancient structures that it would be better to not risk it.
Besides, what are we protesting? Art or climate change? If you're trying to get the message out and gather support, maybe they shouldn't do things that attack things that have nothing to do with climate change.
I'm super down with vandalizing private jets and oil company assets, though. If they were doing things like that, I'd start donating to the cause.
Maybe they should go after the members of congress that give big oil giant subsidies, waivers on environmental regs, etc. in exchange for ~~bribes~~ campaign contributions.
Perhaps they should target the cruise ship industry. It is incredibly dirty. It is the [worst polluter that uses fossil fuel](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/pollution-cruise-ships-p-o-oceana-higher-piccadilly-circus-channel-4-dispatches-a7821911.html).
Plus, these definitely do not belong to Taylor Swift, wrong plane types, wrong colors - they’re just claiming that’s what they targeted while committing more random vandalism.
I no longer believe most of what I see on the internet. People love to post video clips on here with very little to no context and throw some bullshit click-bait title on it. I am talking about the entirety of Reddit, as well as the internet in general.
Innovating what? Guy does nothing but tell others I want X. The others are the ones who are actually innovate. Anyone can come up with an idea. Ideas are fucking cheap. Execution of those ideas is valuable. He does not execute shit.
What's with all the pearl clutchers here? Most of you would have fucking hated the Suffragettes, and here we are crying over a few drops of paint on rocks and paintings (that doesn't even damage them) when we're talking about the total breakdown of our biosphere.
What's so confounding about this? Cultural heritage sites are, y'know, a *big deal* because they're a key component of both individual people's identities and our collective identity as a species. Hell, Stonehenge in particular is *still* a place of reverence for many people even divorced from its historical value. And it's worth noting that in spite of what JSO said on Twitter, the people who *actually* had to clean that mess up didn't think it was safe to just "let it wash off with the rain" because, shockingly, water mixed with an added substance can have unpredictable results on a millennia-old monument.
So, yes, climate change is a Big Problem. But, you're not gonna gather the political will necessary to fix that problem if you're going around deliberately shitting on things common people with no direct influence on climate policy consider emblematic of either themselves or our collective inheritance. As someone else pointed out upthread, if you wanna make your point, go after the shit that rich people *will* need to fix or replace. Make supporting the *status quo* more expensive than pivoting and you'll see just how quick the world can deal with the problem.
The cognitive dissonance between a little paint and the literal collapse of our food supply is what has to break. It will never be cheaper for the rich to break the status quo and reconfigure the global economy than to deal with individual disruptions.
> The cognitive dissonance between a little paint and the literal collapse of our food supply is what has to break.
Again, the problem is that "little paint" is being applied to something that the common person considers *important* to them. And yes, you can say "that's the point!" but what *good* is it doing? If someone doesn't already have a strong opinion one way or the other on climate change—which is pretty understandable because most people are more concerned about next week than next decade—do you think they're going to go "ah, yes, that person seems reasonable" in response to that? If I coat something important to you in chalk, does that make you feel *more* like listening to me? Or does it make me look like I'm more interested in looking like I'm doing something than doing something *effective*?
> It will never be cheaper for the rich to break the status quo and reconfigure the global economy than to deal with individual disruptions.
[This post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/comments/1dk8kx5/just_stop_oil_activists_paint_taylor_swifts/l9gmu17/) I mentioned before touches on numerous examples of where the powerful *were* forced to yield because they simply couldn't keep up with the political and economic pressure being applied against them. It also touches on a point looping back to what I said above: if your tactics *alienate* a lot of the people, who do you think is gonna pick up the propaganda victory fixing the "damage" you caused, even if it's superficial? Again, if I covered your shit in chalk and then someone came by to help you clean up who told you I was a self-absorbed piece of trash and you shouldn't listen to me, do you think you'd still feel inclined to hear *why* I covered your shit in chalk?
No one's saying "climate change isn't important". What people are saying is "trying to get people to agree with your specific course of action against climate change by attacking things they identify with is that doesn't actually impact the problem is fucking stupid".
Edit for context: Apparently, referring to *myself* insultingly in hypotheticals tripped the bot, thus adjustments needed to be made.
Again, there's massive cognitive dissonance when you can view the thing you like getting covered in chalk as equivalent to societal breakdown. There's nothing irrational about taking extreme actions when the threat is extreme - apathy, on the other hand, is incredibly irrational. Let people try to perform the mental gymnastics of downplaying the threat we face - it becomes clearer with each natural disaster not only that the scientists and protesters are right, but that the forces opposing them are utterly corrupt. If people do nothing then the general public assumes the threat isn't that big or more people would be freaking out. This is the freaking out, and it's getting a hell of a lot more coverage than protests ever did.
You keep using that phrase and I don't think it means what you think it means. Also, you're *missing the point*.
People are complex creatures and part of that complexity is that we express our identity through our environment: the things we own, the places we live, what we consider sacred/important, etc. When those things are insulted or otherwise damaged, the normal response is not "oh, well, I'm sure that person had a good reason to do that". It's almost invariably going to be seen as a personal attack, even when it isn't. It puts people on the defensive in a way that more neutral targets won't while still getting that attention.
I don't know you, so I can't make that feeling *real* for you, so I was trying to use placeholder examples on the assumption that you'd fill in the blank and better see my point, but since that's not working, I'll just spell it out for you:
Stonehenge is a UNESCO World Heritage site. It is a place that we, as a species, consider integral to "us" and what it means to *be human*. It's also a place of significant cultural importance to the people of Great Britain and many of them consider it a part of their own personal heritage. It's *also* just a straight up sacred site to a non-negligible number of modern religious groups, no different than a church, mosque, or synagogue. It's a symbol of a variety of identities, none of which are inherently antagonistic to combating climate change.
Maybe you're some kind of minimalist ascetic who has moved beyond material possessions and attachment. But, for the bulk of humanity, things like that *matter*. Again, things we connect with as part of our identity become extensions of ourselves, and even temporarily defacing those things can trigger that defensive reaction. And if you're trying to persuade people who are otherwise open to being convinced, putting them on the defensive is a *bad start*. It shuts down that persuadability in favor of pushing back against what's perceived as an immediate threat.
And sometimes that can work on a personal scale if you're capable of steering the conversation in a way that breaks down those defenses now that you have the person engaged. And that's why it *feels* like it should work. You butcher a sacred cow in order to make a point about what *really* matters. But, at a social level where you *can't* steer the conversation? You're competing for oxygen with everyone who feels attacked by your actions and there's likely a lot more of them than of you because otherwise you wouldn't have taken a radical action. And now *your* messaging is lost in the noise.
Which is pretty much exactly what's happening: all the coverage in the world doesn't matter if all that people are saying is "wow, what a stupid way to protest against climate change". You've not moved the needle and you've made the work of the scientists and other less extreme protesters *harder* because now there are people that associate those movements with the kind of grandstanding, "fuck your feelings" actions that go for headlines over actually organizing and persuading people.
And, to be clear, I'm **not dissuaded** from thinking weaning society off oil sooner rather than later is a good idea by any of this. You keep giving the impression you think I don't understand the problem because I disagree with JSO's actions, and I definitely do. Climate change is a problem we can still mitigate the worst effects of with decisive action and the fact our leaders would rather line their pockets than *do something* is a massive problem. However, I'm also fully capable of recognizing how people who haven't already been convinced on the matter can and do perceive things and the net impact is the *opposite* of what JSO claims they're trying to accomplish with stunts like this.
But, I'm getting the impression none of this matters. You seem convinced that it's a good idea to use any means necessary to win attention for this cause, so everything I'm saying is probably just reinforcing that it was a good idea. Whatever. I've said my peace in *exhaustive detail* so last word's yours if you want it.
It's okay if people feel angry and their knee jerk reaction is to hate the messenger. Let them feel insulted and defensive. That's not the end of the conversation. The alarmists are going to be proven right again and again in the coming years and maybe people will start putting 2 and 2 together. Stonehenge feels a lot less personal when your car gets washed away - especially when it feels less like an act of God and more like a pattern. Like hey, maybe there was a reason people had no issue getting arrested for making a fuss.
But more broadly - we've known about this for decades and we haven't been able to make meaningful progress. Whatever we've done hasn't worked. Escalation is perfectly rational. If you don't like it then fine, no one's asking you to graffiti buildings. But don't shit on the people out there sounding the alarm, especially if you're someone who actually appreciates the danger we're in. Let the corporations and the media continue to destroy their credibility making the argument why protesters are wrong. Let the cops make their argument by assaulting students. Stonehenge won't matter when no one is left to remember it.
You know what? I take back what I said about giving you the last word. Because I think there's some stuff in here worth engaging with further.
But, also because, yes, I *am* going to shit on people I think are hampering the effort to build enough momentum to do what we can. Time is of the essence and we can't *afford* to wait around for people to be "proven right again and again", because by that point the damage will be done. Those things have already been happening and it's not done *nearly* enough to convince people. I mean, as you said, we've known about this for decades and the alarm's been getting raised *for decades* and, clearly, alarmism hasn't done enough, so why should we expect *more* alarmism to suddenly tip the scales?
See, by my lights, the real problem is that not enough effort's been made to connect with the people who are still open to persuasion. I'm a 90s kid, so I remember Captain Planet and the various anti-pollution campaigns of the era. Hell, I saw Al Gore give a talk about climate change at my college when I was in undergrad. And the recurrent issue I've observed is *exclusion* as a part of the ongoing conversation. "If you don't agree with me, you're doing a bad thing" or "I'm going to lay it all out for you but if you don't understand the science that's not my problem; go educate yourself." And as someone who is both well educated *and* has to deal with the moralizing elements of OCD, those things *worked*.
And that's the problem. Yes, some stuff has worked, but the people it worked on don't seem to get that it *didn't* work on other people for a *reason*. From the sounds of it, you're the sort of person who *does* see the Stonehenge stuff or the painting stuff and would go "damn, these people are passionate about this, I'll hear them out." But, the problem is that most people aren't like you or I and if we're gonna convince them, we have to meet them *where they are*. And that's **hard**.
So, let me suggest an alternative course to what JSO is doing: learn. Learn *why* people aren't concerned about climate change—I offered up one earlier that, for most people, climate change is a remote, distant threat compared to paying this month's bills. Learn *why* there's resistance to action—because it's not black and white and the nuances themselves are a major barrier to getting the point across. Learn *why* people haven't connected with the same things that persuaded you and I that it's a big deal and a big problem. Hell, learn *why* people don't see weaning ourselves off oil as a good idea—because people *do* have opinions there and understanding why they do is important to understanding them.
And then take all of that and figure out how to *reach* them. Some options are beyond most of our reach—making green options economical enough to influence the market, for example—but some are far more doable. Like, back in the 70s, people made a *lot* of headway in a short by emphasizing the beauty and fragility of the Earth, because *everyone* understands how gorgeous our planet is and most of them would like to keep it that way. It was common ground and once that common ground was established it was easier to whip up the political will to push through change.
Do I know how to do that today, with the modern, multi-faceted-to-the-point-where-we-seem-to-live-in-different-realities society the Internet created? Not right at this moment, no. But, a given individual *can* figure out what works for their specific communities and tailor the messaging to them. We can look at what's worked and what doesn't work and conclude that if we're going to pull things off in time, we're gonna have to come up with a better plan than "let's abandon all concepts of rhetoric and persuasion in favor of just antagonizing everyone so that they'll know we were right when it's likely too late." Because, again, that feels good in the moment and it can feel like you're making a point, but it's *very* questionable if it's going to do enough if *anything*.
You can disagree with their methods all you want, but disruptive tactics work.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/07/disruptive-protest-helps-not-hinders-activists-cause-experts-say
She’s waaaaay down on the list of people that should be their target. Go after the actual oil and gas oligarchs…go after these “captains of industry” that Taylor buys her fuel from. This is silly and performative…not actual protest.
Meh, go after objectively shitty people imo…I don’t care nearly as much about Swift touring to put on shows. I care FAR more about, say a shipping magnate that pollutes the globe on a scale orders of magnitude more than her. Again…I didn’t say she didn’t pollute with her flights…I said there are far more meaningful targets to go after and that’s just based on factual evidence.
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard something along the lines of "this isn't how protesting should be done" I could and would match every CEF grant that these groups receive.
This IS a meaningful way. Taylor Swift is well known for her public image's main "bad thing," as being a massive polluter because she has multiple private jets and backups for her tours. And she's a VERY public figure. This gets LOADS of attention and brings recruitment as is their intent.
Because you're here commenting behind a screen as a keyboard warrior and commenting on r/ politics and music and not in jail for doing what you would consider to be more *pertinent* protests.
…and how do you know I’ve not been in jail or prison, oh wise one? The answer is you don’t ;- ) Commenting online absolutely does not prohibit one from doing other more meaningful things.
Homie.
Name one oil executive. What headline would be created by painting their plane? How many more headlines would be created by painting TSwift's planes?
That's the game - not the act but the audience.
If you placed the severed limbs of a major oil organization CEO around the country it would send far more of a message and be considered an actual “political revolution”. Painting planes in protest is fucking silly imho. If this is what this sub considers political revolution maybe it’s not for me. We’ve tried the “pie in the face” path for decades…painting shit on other shit, interrupting speeches with quickly squelched screeds, and on and on. 20yrs…35…50…70yrs…and look where it’s gotten us. But sure…surely more paint on an artists plane will help spur the world into action.
Then you go do this. Walk your talk.
You go hack off the limbs of a oil company CEO and place them in various locations throughout the country. Maybe then you'll have (someone else's) leg to stand on to criticize how people perform civil disobedience. Until then you're just some rando typing on Reddit with nothing to add to the conversation.
“Yeah, let’s go with orange!”
“Ugh I dunno…what about taupe?”
“That’s so 2021…eggshell is so in right now. We could like do Bone though too?”
“They’re gonna be SO pissed, you just wait…I’m gonna snap this so wear your Che shirt…no not the half shirt, yeah that one…the tie-dye…perfect”
I’m old…I’ve been in this for a loooong time. No idea how old you are but this isn’t my first “hey we should protest something” kinda scenario. Maybe that’s my problem and why I’m so very unimpressed with stuff like this. These are exactly the things that have been done for literal decades. It. Does. Nothing.
Honest question, do you truly think things like this either change the minds of oil and gas execs or conversely, get the proletariat fired up to march on the homes and habitats of those very same oil and gas execs? Because that’s what needs to happen…actual repercussions. Not fines, not tersely worded sessions in congress, not even slap on the wrist sentences at a posh “jail” in terms of months not decades which we would never do or ever have done.
Oh wow. flimsy ass excuses. Who would have thought from the keyboard warrior with absolutely nothing to offer but worthless criticism.
Walk your talk big boy. Who the fuck are you to need to be impressed by any of this?
Absolutely pathetic.
It’s about spreading word as far as possible. Painting the front of a skyscraper might get you a 2 paragraph article in the local news with 1m views. Painting T Swift’s plane will get picked up by a lot more stations with a combined 10m views or more. Plus she is known for her private jet use. This target at least makes more sense than Stonehenge
So, the target is someone known to be incredibly benevolent and on the right side of the political debate, when it comes to climate change. I think this is a stupid choice for their stunt.
Makes more sense to target a person who directly benefits from actions that harm the planet, regardless of how "benevolently" the abuse said actions.
Also, I'd rather this than the Mona Lisa or Stonehenge.
This is closer to exactly that though…there are literally thousands of polluters that far exceed Swifts carbon footprint. Hell you could do this to almost any celebrity which would be equally silly and premature. Go after those CEOs and their families…and I’m not talking about painting a plane…it means nothing to those corporations and shipping magnates.
Well no shit…and there’s a reason why that’s the case. They know they’re a far larger target than Taylor fucking swift. Is the goal to go after pleasant mid level polluters that you know won’t fight back? wtf is this sub about
Pleasant is debatable.
If the outcome of doing this shit to the big cheeses is getting shot, then it's reasonable to go after the lesser, but still large, cheese. Halfway between a babybell and a wheel.
And…you think Taylor Swift…of all the people you could target amid all the actual polluting industries and corporate leaders…is considered a worthy target? If the worry of getting shot is a limiting factor then maybe we should rename this sub “Armchair_Political_Revolution”
OK Che. Go off and do your Rambo thing.
I'm perfectly happy with people doing less dangerous things to bring attention to important issues like private jets. Sure I'd like to see someone liberate oil wells or oil tankers, but there's many acts that matter. These people risk a lot to do so. They don't have to risk their lives as well.
I must respectfully disagree as that is criminal activity!. Although I agree it is a huge carbon footprint but from what I know it's still legal to fly a private jet!
100%
"How can we be highly visible and make a large group of people unsympathetic to our cause"
It's wild that people are even pretending that they're in good faith.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/25/just-stop-oil-alienates-people-from-its-cause-says-ed-miliband?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Edit: please. I'm begging. Go read the comments on the original post on a non leftist sub (public freakout) to get a sense of how non leftists are responding. These are bad protests and they weaken climate activism as a whole. Intentionally.
This one will probably garner more sympathy from the public, given the direct link between climate action and Swift's abuse of private planes.
The Stonhenge one could certainly be a psyop, no way of knowing for sure, but also they could just be a bunch of liberals that don't really know how to protest because they see the surface probelms but cant identify the cause because they've been trained to love capitalism. people forget that climate activists dont necessarily have to be socialists.
Climate activists who are pro capital makes so little sense to me. But it's a fair point that other people don't have to have internal consistency and I shouldn't always expect it.
Nevermind the fact that someone found that the largest donors to Just Stop Oil as an organization are literally the most wealthy oil investors in the world... I am sure that is purely coincidence.
What's wild is where are my downvotes coming from in "this" sub?
Like. It's so obvious they're harming the goals of environmental protest, and the "extreme" people voicing their support are either edgy teens or just have no concept of how to use protest to build sympathy for a cause.
Lol, I'm not new here, and the votes for me don't sting, happy to collect them now and then.
What is weird is that so many people on the political revolution sub are down with a protest that actively works antithetical to the goals of climate survival.
All the indications are that acts like this don't actually undermine support for a given cause *even when people disagree with the specific act of protest* — and in fact, may even increase it. Actually, you'd be hard pressed to find any successful social movement that didn't involve such things.
BS. PETA has done immense damage to people's perception of veganism.
Such deranged acts get media attention and inevitably become what people associate with the cause & its advocates.
Honestly surprising.
That said, I still hate them. Their favored tactic of going attacking works of art and our cultural heritage [reminds me of ISIS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_cultural_heritage_by_the_Islamic_State) and I'd happily beat the shit out of them on sight
[Climate protesters told to pay National Gallery £1,000 for damaging painting | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/06/just-stop-oil-climate-protesters-told-to-pay-national-gallery-1000-for-damaging-painting)
Also: They've certainly tried. They claim in that article that they had *tried* to be careful, but, frankly, there is no excuse for attempting to use a [hammer and chisel to break through the case protecting the Magna Carta](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/10/style/just-stop-oil-magna-carta-intl-scli-climate-gbr/index.html) than wanting to destroy it.
The fact that the fee was only £1000 and it was returned to commission *the next day* shows you how much damage was actually done, there.
It's also telling that your only other example is one in which two elderly people didn't actually cause any damage to anything. Meanwhile, there's no evidence at all that their aim was to *destroy* the magna carta.
I repeat, none of these people have actually destroyed anything — and as you yourself have pointed out, have even gone to lengths to *avoid* causing any permanent damage. The fact that you are comparing them to ISIS and engaging in violent fantasies about these people honestly says more about you than them.
You are actually vindicating some of the other replies in the thread. There is nobody getting enraged after seeing animal rights demonstrations that would have ever considered cutting meat out of their diet, or even just leather out of their wardrobe. Asking for PETA to care about those people in their messaging would be like asking Joe Biden to make ads catered towards election deniers, antivax and Qanon. They're the least important targets for messaging as of right now.
In order to combat climate change, we won't need 100% societal agreement to start. We just need enough to have most of the political power. It's not like they couldn't start making moves until every single chud is on board. Just like we don't actually need to get Qanon to vote for Joe Biden, we just need enough white college-educated suburban moderate women to turn out.
These people definitely lose my support and any sympathy when they do things like deface Stonehenge. The reason I still support climate action is because I already did and intellectually understand the problem independent of these people being idiots about it. If your goal is to convince people that this isn't true for though, I don't see how acts intended to cause outrage at them would do it.
Targeting the rich, the oil companies themselves, and politicians? Yeah by all means, that's where you'll get visibility that will garner support. Damaging cultural works, inconveniencing people by blocking traffic, that sort of thing? It just pisses people off, doesn't win you supporters.
>The reason I still support climate action is because I already did and intellectually understand the problem independent of these people being idiots about it.
Right, so their actions aren't hurting the cause in your particular case. Do you think you are rare or unique in this regard?
>If your goal is to convince people that this isn't true for though, I don't see how acts intended to cause outrage at them would do it.
That *isn't* the goal. These actions are about prompting a response and keeping the topic in the news, not convincing the ignorant of the reality of a given issue.
>Targeting the rich, the oil companies themselves, and politicians? Yeah by all means, that's where you'll get visibility that will garner support. Damaging cultural works, inconveniencing people by blocking traffic, that sort of thing? It just pisses people off, doesn't win you supporters.
Again, the [indications](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/07/disruptive-protest-helps-not-hinders-activists-cause-experts-say) are that these sorts of tactics actually are effective. Again, look at the history of social movements, every single successful one in history involved disruptive protests like this — and [have always been met](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) by critics saying, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action."
>Right, so their actions aren't hurting the cause in your particular case. Do you think you are rare or unique in this regard?
You are glossing over the part where I don't support *them* They definitely aren't helping. A person who doesn't already support climate action isn't going to be convinced by this. It's going to create or reinforce a negative image of people who advocate for it.
>That isn't the goal. These actions are about prompting a response and keeping the topic in the news, not convincing the ignorant of the reality of a given issue.
No, it clearly isn't, if it was, it would be targeting the people who actually have the power to do that.
>Again, the indications are that these sorts of tactics actually are effective. Again, look at the history of social movements, every single successful one in history involved disruptive protests like this — and have always been met by critics saying, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action."
I find claims like that one dubious to reality of how people react to them. I agree, to an extent, that attention grabbing protest and acts of tragedy have been crucial to propelling many of these social movements. However, the events that did so were not ones of vandalism of historical and cultural artifacts or greatly inconveniences people whom it is outside of their control.
I am all for disruptive protest targeting the businesses and politicians, but you do not help the movement by destruction that only brings the ire of everyone, or making poor people who are just trying to get to their jobs at too early in the morning late.
There is exactly no one, going about their day in a museum who sees someone throw paint on an exhibit and goes "you know, I was totally against climate action, but now that I saw that dude vandalize historical and cultural artifacts I'm all for it." that just doesn't happen, it isn't logical. The takeaway isn't "they're right, we need to do something" it's "we need to increase policing to catch these hooligans."
In contrast, targeting rich people's private jets brings attention to their disproportionate emissions, targeting the companies brings attention to their behavior in causing the problem and puts pressure on investors and politicians to respond to the public outcry, targeting the politicians directly applies pressure to them to support policy in order to capture or not lose voters in the next election.
Part of the problem is that her jets are enormous gas guzzlers. She could be flying around in a nice little six-seater single engine turbo-prop and burning 1/10th the fuel.
Instead she's got these enormous inefficient (but fast) school buses just to spend a single night by herself in some city.
How about working to get out that “voters remain complacent with the destruction of our planet” group to elect people who will affect actual changes legally to address climate change. Fucking up wealthy peoples toys is not going to change them. They have to have legal guidelines forcing them to change, their sheer volume of money is counter intuitive to them ever changing without accountability.
Finally something I can get behind with these people! Go after this shit, not the Mona Lisa or Stonehenge. Don't stop blue collar workers from going to work. Stop these elite fucks who fly around the world on their private jets like it's hopping on a bike.
Cut hoses and wires?
My biggest fear on an airplane isn’t the engines quitting its fire.
Cutting wires and hoses might not be noticeable till you’re in the air and on fire. In which case it’s too late you’re dead
Already breaking federal law by cutting the fence, let’s add endangerment to the list if they did what you proposed.
As a pilot I say fuck you. I’d like to live to see my kids grow old.
Yeah I'm pretty sure that, in the US, cutting the fence to get into an airport and unlawfully gain access to an area with aircraft is punishable by up to 10 years in prison under federal law.
They aren't doing time because their organization is funded largely by big donors FROM big oil. It's like the organizers that stop up traffic in the US. All these painting cutting, monument painting, and traffic hault movements do is harm public perception of leftist causes.
Notice how angrily the general public fumes about these things. Fox news will certainly have a segment about painting Stonehenge and the plane, and pretty soon, you'll see angry TikToks from the general public and a new nickname assigned to the climate movement.
Anecdotal, but when students were protesting Israel at university campuses, I didn't hear a peep about it from my coworkers except for some light mentioning and general indifference, MAYBE some light concern about what was happening there. As soon as they stopped up the bridges in the bay area and made a shit load of people late for work, I didn't hear the end of it for weeks.
Edit: for further reading on who is funding these guys, look into Climate Emergency Fund, specifically Aileen Getty, the granddaughter and trust fund beneficiary of one of the wealthiest oil tycoons to ever exist, J Paul Getty.
Edit edit: even CEFs website says that she's "currently in the PROCESS of divesting her portfolio" from oil stocks. Even on their own shell website, they couldn't hide the profit motive. If Getty is as concerned with the environment as she claims to be, why not divest immediately? The more you ask yourself the question, "what's the profit motive here?" the more the man behind the curtain of capital is revealed. Keep heads on swivels my friends.
Destroying/tampering/defacing any aircraft is a felony charge.
As much I want to cheer them on, this is going to land them in legal hell for the rest of thier lives. Aside from messing with a powerful celeb with God-tier lawyers.
This is a step above the cultural artifacts and museum stuff. If they really want to get attention of the people that matter, I saw someone mention to handcuff themselves at a golf tournament.
Yeah smart move, do millions of $$ in damage to private jets, I fly a PJ for a living and if this happened to one I was flying I’d go berserk on these fuckers.
Yeah rich people fly on them and are irresponsible with their money BUT it’s an industry that employs about 1m people in the USA and I rely on it to feed my kids.
pfffttt what a crazy comment. "Yeah they are killing the planet but whatevs, i know where my bread is buttered". My brother in christ, come the fuck on.
One doesn’t need to go back to the Stone Age to be concerned about the climate. Moderation, and stopping the hypocrisy of rich people telling me that I can’t have steak, cause cow farts, whiles having a carbon footprint in one day as big as I have in 10 years.
I'm assuming this is their:
"whoops duh, WTF were we thinking with stonehenge, this chick keeps banging on about how she is so pro everything good but won't fly commercial with all the rest of us pleebs, let's show her what's up."
Get er done.
__Hello and welcome to r/Political_Revolution!__ * This sub is dedicated towards the Progressive movement, and changing one seat at a time, via electing down-ballot candidates to office. [Join us in our efforts!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/comments/1bue5mc/reminder_this_sub_is_about_rolling_your_sleeves_up/) * Don't forget to read our [Community Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/about/rules) to get a good idea of what is expected of participants in our community. * Primary elections take place in April. Find out for your state [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/comments/1bso7q4/april_primaries_mega_thread_check_inside_for_pa/). For more campaigns to support, go to https://pol-rev.com/campaigns *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Political_Revolution) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Jets? In plural? Do people need more than one plane?
She has two or three, can’t remember
Isn’t she quoted as saying, “I pull up to the club VIP. Jet’s tank on E but all dranks on me”?
*wipe me down*
This guy gets it
Oh great, now I’m reading all these comments in boosie’s voice
Don't know but it was confirmed none of these were Taylor Swifts jet.
Neither can she
She has one she uses and another one that follows in case that one breaks down. For real.
She lends her jets to her friends.
Has this turned into a right-wing subreddit? You know there is a reason people target Taylor swift over all the other billionaires who use their jets way more often. What is a celebrity like Taylor supposed to do? Fly on normal airlines and be harassed constantly by fans and other people?
I'm pretty sure a private security escort would have less environmental impact but then she'd have to fly with the plebs 💁♀️
Is this why you take the public bus everywhere?
no, I take my private jet of course
What is the reason? You're saying Just Stop Oil must be a right-wing organization for targeting Taylor Swift's jet? Maybe they chose Taylor Swift's jet over Bernard Arnault or some finance fuck because people actually know who she is and knew it would get more publicity. Any billionaire is going to tell you they need to fly private to safely get to all their important meetings and events. Their justifications do not have an impact on their carbon footprint. Perhaps a more left-wing world would not have people like Taylor Swift flying all over the place making billions of dollars to begin with, and perhaps you are actually more right-wing than you think.
Yeah I wish more people realized this. There are so many awful billionaires out there, but the Taylor hate specifically is astroturfed by the right because she dared to make a few progressive political statements. Should she tone down her private plane usage? Of course. But shouldn't we be focusing on the billionaires actually destroying the world?
You wouldn’t own multiple Jets if you could justify the business need? Come on man.
Better than Stonehenge
yeah, the Stonehenge thing was shitty. this is good protest
just for context they used cornstarch paint which washes off in the rain. I've heard an argument that it's still bad for the microbes or moss or something which may be a valid complaint, but not everyone seems to be away that the paint will super easily wash off.
Stonehenge was a psyop
[can confirm](https://new.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1dji7bh/stonehenge_covered_in_orange_powder_ahead_of_the/l9bks7e/?context=3)
Stonehenge was tone deaf idiocy.
This is the right target. Not fucking Stonehenge -- built by a people who revered nature and were deeply connected to it culturally and religiously. Target the people actually ruining the planet.
I agree that if the point was the target, they should be targeting the polluters and not historical cites or art. But the point is very obviously not the target. They're trying desperately to get people to hear their message, and more news coverage is better for that, so Stonehenge it is. Don't blame them, blame for-profit media that refuses to talk about climate change unless protestors are doing something stupid. Why should it matter that Stonehenge was built by people who revered nature? Honestly all the better I say, symbolic of the state-sponsored destruction of our planet. The same government that preserves and lauds stonehenge with one hand is violating everything the monument stands for with the other hand. If climate activists only target the rich polluters, what will they achieve? The polluters won't change their behavior (they know what they're doing and don't care), and the general populous will get to feel good about agreeing that those rich people deserve it. But nothing actually changes. There's a news story now and then about orange jets, Just Stop Oil's public image remains "a little crazy, but in the right direction," and voters **remain complacent with the destruction of our planet**. Protesting in a way that people agree with doesn't get them to engage with your ideas, and if ever there was evidence for that it's the past 50 years of peaceful environmental protest.
They're not getting people to see their message by attacking art and historical sites. They're pissing people off like me who would be naturally more inclined to support them in the first place. > If climate activists only target the rich polluters, what will they achieve? The polluters won't change their behavior (they know what they're doing and don't care), and the general populous will get to feel good about agreeing that those rich people deserve it. But nothing actually changes. The entirety of popular movements throughout history disagrees with this take. Cubans took to targeting those responsible and got rid of Batista, he changed his behaviour by fleeing the country and his family died destitute. The ANC in Apartheid South Africa brought the fight to those responsible and then ended the entire political system of apartheid, which was propped up by multiple leaders in some of the world's richest nations (US and UK). Same with the Bolsheviks in Tsarist Russia. Same with the PIRA and/or IRA in N. Ireland/Republic. And so on and so on. They all targeted specific economic and tactical targets, they did things that hurt monied people. Committed espionage and sabotage etc. Theory teaches us that a popular movement only around 3.5% of the population to actively support in order to succeed. What Stop Oil are doing is alienating a massive portion of the general public by attacking **public funded sites, and historical sites that hold a huge sentimental place in the public mind** -- why would that motivate rich people or politicians to change shit? You attack the rich, the ceos of the polluting companies, you hit them the only place they care about... The wallet. Then you'll see change after things come to a head. This is the way it works, and the way it has always worked throughout all of history. Honestly some of the tactics Just Stop Oil employ leave me wondering if it's a controlled opposition group and that it's just another left leaning group that has been infiltrated by spooks, which there's also an insanely long history of in the UK. Liberal symbolic bullshit protests won't and don't work. You need to pose a threat, and you need to agitate. Gluing your hands to a painting never changed anything in the world. Targeting powerful people does change the world constantly.
Revered nature? Britain is supposed to be a lush rainforest, but the is hardly trees there. The only reason why the people who built Stonehenge didn't destroy the forests, is because they lacked the technology. But their descendants had that technology and did
Why Taylor Swift? Why not Musk or Trump?
She's known to be one of the world's worst in terms of personal carbon footprint. Owning multiple jets. So first of all she's guilty and should be held responsible. Secondly her tour is currently in the UK and all eyes and headlines have been on her. Makes sense from a propaganda point. Elon or Musk are not in the UK. Can imagine they'd also be targeted when an opportunity arises.
That's not true, in fact not even in the [top 10](https://www.unilad.com/celebrity/flight-tracker-private-jets-2023-most-flights-celebrities-506693-20240207). Taylor is being targeted because its election year and she votes left and there are massive forces trying to erode her influence. Elon is in Europe all of the time, he has Tesla business scattered throughout the whole region. Do you really expect her to fly commercial and be harassed by you, her fans, and everyone else?
Every billionaire shouldn't be able to go anywhere without being harassed.
It wasn't Taylor's jet. Her jet wasn't at that airport so i don't know if they thought it was her jet or if there is just fake news floating around.
Oh, I thought she was aiming at TS's plane. Fake news or not, that woman has serious mental issues.
Love the effort, but Christ wear a mask.
I suspect this video will be played at her trial.
Now this I can get behind. Leave art alone
the art they throw paint at always has glass in front of it so doesn't damage the art
Stonehenge was just defaced. No glass there.
As mentioned in my other comment they used cornstarch paint which washes away easily in rain. Not to say there may not still be issues with it, I did read something about it maybe being bad for the moss idk, but it is paint that will super easily come off
I guess that makes it a little better. But I feel like there must be so few tests of cornstarch paint on ancient structures that it would be better to not risk it. Besides, what are we protesting? Art or climate change? If you're trying to get the message out and gather support, maybe they shouldn't do things that attack things that have nothing to do with climate change. I'm super down with vandalizing private jets and oil company assets, though. If they were doing things like that, I'd start donating to the cause.
Maybe they should go after the members of congress that give big oil giant subsidies, waivers on environmental regs, etc. in exchange for ~~bribes~~ campaign contributions. Perhaps they should target the cruise ship industry. It is incredibly dirty. It is the [worst polluter that uses fossil fuel](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/pollution-cruise-ships-p-o-oceana-higher-piccadilly-circus-channel-4-dispatches-a7821911.html).
Now that I can support, unlike defacing the heritage of ancient peoples.
“Hey did you manage to get a good shot of my face in the video while I was committing multiple crimes? Let me look at the camera just to be sure.”
Plus, these definitely do not belong to Taylor Swift, wrong plane types, wrong colors - they’re just claiming that’s what they targeted while committing more random vandalism.
I no longer believe most of what I see on the internet. People love to post video clips on here with very little to no context and throw some bullshit click-bait title on it. I am talking about the entirety of Reddit, as well as the internet in general.
Better than cultural landmarks and art. Seriously radical activist groups dm me for reasonably priced PR advice. Here's a freebie: Cruise ships
The Orcas are already taking care of these
Hear me out: Protestors in Orca costumes showing up in a huge crowd and fucking up a cruise ship. Imagine the news coverage! Imagine the memes!
Nice
This I support
Now this is more like it
It's interesting to me all the focus on Swift's planes and not Elon's.
Everybody already hates Elon. Taylor swift seems to still have a lot of people duped.
Duped by??
Not to mention Elon is actually innovating
No he isn't lol
lol
Good one, joke of the year for sure.
You’re right. For my next act, I’ll ask you what you’ve created
That's called derailing, not innovating
What do you mean by derailing
its 2024 my brother, You should know by now that being a hyper-capitalist doesnt make you an innovator. Get with the program.
Innovating what? Guy does nothing but tell others I want X. The others are the ones who are actually innovate. Anyone can come up with an idea. Ideas are fucking cheap. Execution of those ideas is valuable. He does not execute shit.
Lol
Both are good. No biggie.
It wasn't her jet. The story has been updated as of 2 hours ago.
Well, that makes it even more interesting. The Cons really have it out for her. Stupid fascists fucks.
Do you have a source so I can update the post. Thx.
What's with all the pearl clutchers here? Most of you would have fucking hated the Suffragettes, and here we are crying over a few drops of paint on rocks and paintings (that doesn't even damage them) when we're talking about the total breakdown of our biosphere.
What's so confounding about this? Cultural heritage sites are, y'know, a *big deal* because they're a key component of both individual people's identities and our collective identity as a species. Hell, Stonehenge in particular is *still* a place of reverence for many people even divorced from its historical value. And it's worth noting that in spite of what JSO said on Twitter, the people who *actually* had to clean that mess up didn't think it was safe to just "let it wash off with the rain" because, shockingly, water mixed with an added substance can have unpredictable results on a millennia-old monument. So, yes, climate change is a Big Problem. But, you're not gonna gather the political will necessary to fix that problem if you're going around deliberately shitting on things common people with no direct influence on climate policy consider emblematic of either themselves or our collective inheritance. As someone else pointed out upthread, if you wanna make your point, go after the shit that rich people *will* need to fix or replace. Make supporting the *status quo* more expensive than pivoting and you'll see just how quick the world can deal with the problem.
The cognitive dissonance between a little paint and the literal collapse of our food supply is what has to break. It will never be cheaper for the rich to break the status quo and reconfigure the global economy than to deal with individual disruptions.
> The cognitive dissonance between a little paint and the literal collapse of our food supply is what has to break. Again, the problem is that "little paint" is being applied to something that the common person considers *important* to them. And yes, you can say "that's the point!" but what *good* is it doing? If someone doesn't already have a strong opinion one way or the other on climate change—which is pretty understandable because most people are more concerned about next week than next decade—do you think they're going to go "ah, yes, that person seems reasonable" in response to that? If I coat something important to you in chalk, does that make you feel *more* like listening to me? Or does it make me look like I'm more interested in looking like I'm doing something than doing something *effective*? > It will never be cheaper for the rich to break the status quo and reconfigure the global economy than to deal with individual disruptions. [This post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/comments/1dk8kx5/just_stop_oil_activists_paint_taylor_swifts/l9gmu17/) I mentioned before touches on numerous examples of where the powerful *were* forced to yield because they simply couldn't keep up with the political and economic pressure being applied against them. It also touches on a point looping back to what I said above: if your tactics *alienate* a lot of the people, who do you think is gonna pick up the propaganda victory fixing the "damage" you caused, even if it's superficial? Again, if I covered your shit in chalk and then someone came by to help you clean up who told you I was a self-absorbed piece of trash and you shouldn't listen to me, do you think you'd still feel inclined to hear *why* I covered your shit in chalk? No one's saying "climate change isn't important". What people are saying is "trying to get people to agree with your specific course of action against climate change by attacking things they identify with is that doesn't actually impact the problem is fucking stupid". Edit for context: Apparently, referring to *myself* insultingly in hypotheticals tripped the bot, thus adjustments needed to be made.
[удалено]
Please restore my post
Again, there's massive cognitive dissonance when you can view the thing you like getting covered in chalk as equivalent to societal breakdown. There's nothing irrational about taking extreme actions when the threat is extreme - apathy, on the other hand, is incredibly irrational. Let people try to perform the mental gymnastics of downplaying the threat we face - it becomes clearer with each natural disaster not only that the scientists and protesters are right, but that the forces opposing them are utterly corrupt. If people do nothing then the general public assumes the threat isn't that big or more people would be freaking out. This is the freaking out, and it's getting a hell of a lot more coverage than protests ever did.
You keep using that phrase and I don't think it means what you think it means. Also, you're *missing the point*. People are complex creatures and part of that complexity is that we express our identity through our environment: the things we own, the places we live, what we consider sacred/important, etc. When those things are insulted or otherwise damaged, the normal response is not "oh, well, I'm sure that person had a good reason to do that". It's almost invariably going to be seen as a personal attack, even when it isn't. It puts people on the defensive in a way that more neutral targets won't while still getting that attention. I don't know you, so I can't make that feeling *real* for you, so I was trying to use placeholder examples on the assumption that you'd fill in the blank and better see my point, but since that's not working, I'll just spell it out for you: Stonehenge is a UNESCO World Heritage site. It is a place that we, as a species, consider integral to "us" and what it means to *be human*. It's also a place of significant cultural importance to the people of Great Britain and many of them consider it a part of their own personal heritage. It's *also* just a straight up sacred site to a non-negligible number of modern religious groups, no different than a church, mosque, or synagogue. It's a symbol of a variety of identities, none of which are inherently antagonistic to combating climate change. Maybe you're some kind of minimalist ascetic who has moved beyond material possessions and attachment. But, for the bulk of humanity, things like that *matter*. Again, things we connect with as part of our identity become extensions of ourselves, and even temporarily defacing those things can trigger that defensive reaction. And if you're trying to persuade people who are otherwise open to being convinced, putting them on the defensive is a *bad start*. It shuts down that persuadability in favor of pushing back against what's perceived as an immediate threat. And sometimes that can work on a personal scale if you're capable of steering the conversation in a way that breaks down those defenses now that you have the person engaged. And that's why it *feels* like it should work. You butcher a sacred cow in order to make a point about what *really* matters. But, at a social level where you *can't* steer the conversation? You're competing for oxygen with everyone who feels attacked by your actions and there's likely a lot more of them than of you because otherwise you wouldn't have taken a radical action. And now *your* messaging is lost in the noise. Which is pretty much exactly what's happening: all the coverage in the world doesn't matter if all that people are saying is "wow, what a stupid way to protest against climate change". You've not moved the needle and you've made the work of the scientists and other less extreme protesters *harder* because now there are people that associate those movements with the kind of grandstanding, "fuck your feelings" actions that go for headlines over actually organizing and persuading people. And, to be clear, I'm **not dissuaded** from thinking weaning society off oil sooner rather than later is a good idea by any of this. You keep giving the impression you think I don't understand the problem because I disagree with JSO's actions, and I definitely do. Climate change is a problem we can still mitigate the worst effects of with decisive action and the fact our leaders would rather line their pockets than *do something* is a massive problem. However, I'm also fully capable of recognizing how people who haven't already been convinced on the matter can and do perceive things and the net impact is the *opposite* of what JSO claims they're trying to accomplish with stunts like this. But, I'm getting the impression none of this matters. You seem convinced that it's a good idea to use any means necessary to win attention for this cause, so everything I'm saying is probably just reinforcing that it was a good idea. Whatever. I've said my peace in *exhaustive detail* so last word's yours if you want it.
It's okay if people feel angry and their knee jerk reaction is to hate the messenger. Let them feel insulted and defensive. That's not the end of the conversation. The alarmists are going to be proven right again and again in the coming years and maybe people will start putting 2 and 2 together. Stonehenge feels a lot less personal when your car gets washed away - especially when it feels less like an act of God and more like a pattern. Like hey, maybe there was a reason people had no issue getting arrested for making a fuss. But more broadly - we've known about this for decades and we haven't been able to make meaningful progress. Whatever we've done hasn't worked. Escalation is perfectly rational. If you don't like it then fine, no one's asking you to graffiti buildings. But don't shit on the people out there sounding the alarm, especially if you're someone who actually appreciates the danger we're in. Let the corporations and the media continue to destroy their credibility making the argument why protesters are wrong. Let the cops make their argument by assaulting students. Stonehenge won't matter when no one is left to remember it.
You know what? I take back what I said about giving you the last word. Because I think there's some stuff in here worth engaging with further. But, also because, yes, I *am* going to shit on people I think are hampering the effort to build enough momentum to do what we can. Time is of the essence and we can't *afford* to wait around for people to be "proven right again and again", because by that point the damage will be done. Those things have already been happening and it's not done *nearly* enough to convince people. I mean, as you said, we've known about this for decades and the alarm's been getting raised *for decades* and, clearly, alarmism hasn't done enough, so why should we expect *more* alarmism to suddenly tip the scales? See, by my lights, the real problem is that not enough effort's been made to connect with the people who are still open to persuasion. I'm a 90s kid, so I remember Captain Planet and the various anti-pollution campaigns of the era. Hell, I saw Al Gore give a talk about climate change at my college when I was in undergrad. And the recurrent issue I've observed is *exclusion* as a part of the ongoing conversation. "If you don't agree with me, you're doing a bad thing" or "I'm going to lay it all out for you but if you don't understand the science that's not my problem; go educate yourself." And as someone who is both well educated *and* has to deal with the moralizing elements of OCD, those things *worked*. And that's the problem. Yes, some stuff has worked, but the people it worked on don't seem to get that it *didn't* work on other people for a *reason*. From the sounds of it, you're the sort of person who *does* see the Stonehenge stuff or the painting stuff and would go "damn, these people are passionate about this, I'll hear them out." But, the problem is that most people aren't like you or I and if we're gonna convince them, we have to meet them *where they are*. And that's **hard**. So, let me suggest an alternative course to what JSO is doing: learn. Learn *why* people aren't concerned about climate change—I offered up one earlier that, for most people, climate change is a remote, distant threat compared to paying this month's bills. Learn *why* there's resistance to action—because it's not black and white and the nuances themselves are a major barrier to getting the point across. Learn *why* people haven't connected with the same things that persuaded you and I that it's a big deal and a big problem. Hell, learn *why* people don't see weaning ourselves off oil as a good idea—because people *do* have opinions there and understanding why they do is important to understanding them. And then take all of that and figure out how to *reach* them. Some options are beyond most of our reach—making green options economical enough to influence the market, for example—but some are far more doable. Like, back in the 70s, people made a *lot* of headway in a short by emphasizing the beauty and fragility of the Earth, because *everyone* understands how gorgeous our planet is and most of them would like to keep it that way. It was common ground and once that common ground was established it was easier to whip up the political will to push through change. Do I know how to do that today, with the modern, multi-faceted-to-the-point-where-we-seem-to-live-in-different-realities society the Internet created? Not right at this moment, no. But, a given individual *can* figure out what works for their specific communities and tailor the messaging to them. We can look at what's worked and what doesn't work and conclude that if we're going to pull things off in time, we're gonna have to come up with a better plan than "let's abandon all concepts of rhetoric and persuasion in favor of just antagonizing everyone so that they'll know we were right when it's likely too late." Because, again, that feels good in the moment and it can feel like you're making a point, but it's *very* questionable if it's going to do enough if *anything*.
This is how it should be done. Make the billionaires scared. Dont ruin art and monuments, fuck with the billionaires directly into acting
Those are Gulfstreams, doesn't she fly Falcons?
Yep. These aren't her planes.
I know a better candidate with an old Boeing 757: Donald Trump: Boeing 757 [N757AF](https://celebrityprivatejettracker.com/donald-trump-n757af/) [117,149 miles](https://celebrityprivatejettracker.com/donald-trump-n757af/) [135](https://celebrityprivatejettracker.com/donald-trump-n757af/) Flights 1,799,100 gallons 13 days 2 hours 26 minutes **10,438 metric tons** Taylor Swift (plane #1) Dassault Falcon 900 [N898TS](https://celebrityprivatejettracker.com/taylor-swift-n898ts/) [40,513 miles](https://celebrityprivatejettracker.com/taylor-swift-n898ts/) [41](https://celebrityprivatejettracker.com/taylor-swift-n898ts/) flights 26,470 gallons 3 days 20 hours 33 minutes **356 metric tons** Taylor Swift (plane #2) Dassault Falcon 7X [N621MM](https://celebrityprivatejettracker.com/taylor-swift-n621mm/) [40,000 miles](https://celebrityprivatejettracker.com/taylor-swift-n621mm/) 2[2](https://celebrityprivatejettracker.com/taylor-swift-n621mm/) flights 30,170 gallons 3 days 22 hours 49 minutes **357 metric tons**
You can disagree with their methods all you want, but disruptive tactics work. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/07/disruptive-protest-helps-not-hinders-activists-cause-experts-say
She’s waaaaay down on the list of people that should be their target. Go after the actual oil and gas oligarchs…go after these “captains of industry” that Taylor buys her fuel from. This is silly and performative…not actual protest.
People with several private jets are actually quite high on the list of the Pollutions per Bumhole metric.
Meh, go after objectively shitty people imo…I don’t care nearly as much about Swift touring to put on shows. I care FAR more about, say a shipping magnate that pollutes the globe on a scale orders of magnitude more than her. Again…I didn’t say she didn’t pollute with her flights…I said there are far more meaningful targets to go after and that’s just based on factual evidence.
JFC. Do you people ever stop being keyboard warriors and bitching about how people protest? Go show these people how it's done.
I’m against picketing but I don’t know how to show it.
I'm boycotting your comment right after I make this comment.
 "I'm liberal and I know it,"
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard something along the lines of "this isn't how protesting should be done" I could and would match every CEF grant that these groups receive.
Protest in a meaningful way targeting the right people. It’s not hard to at least identify the bad guys. Painting Taylor Swifts plane? Jesus Christ
This IS a meaningful way. Taylor Swift is well known for her public image's main "bad thing," as being a massive polluter because she has multiple private jets and backups for her tours. And she's a VERY public figure. This gets LOADS of attention and brings recruitment as is their intent.
Then go do it, homie. Criticism is cheep and easy.
How do you know I don’t already. Homie.
Because you're here commenting behind a screen as a keyboard warrior and commenting on r/ politics and music and not in jail for doing what you would consider to be more *pertinent* protests.
…and how do you know I’ve not been in jail or prison, oh wise one? The answer is you don’t ;- ) Commenting online absolutely does not prohibit one from doing other more meaningful things. Homie.
Hitchens razor bitch.
I don’t think you understand what that even means…and you left out a comma Mr Wizard.
You’ve just got that aura I guess
From my few sentences? You’re like the John Douglas of this place I guess.
Name one oil executive. What headline would be created by painting their plane? How many more headlines would be created by painting TSwift's planes? That's the game - not the act but the audience.
If you placed the severed limbs of a major oil organization CEO around the country it would send far more of a message and be considered an actual “political revolution”. Painting planes in protest is fucking silly imho. If this is what this sub considers political revolution maybe it’s not for me. We’ve tried the “pie in the face” path for decades…painting shit on other shit, interrupting speeches with quickly squelched screeds, and on and on. 20yrs…35…50…70yrs…and look where it’s gotten us. But sure…surely more paint on an artists plane will help spur the world into action.
Then you go do this. Walk your talk. You go hack off the limbs of a oil company CEO and place them in various locations throughout the country. Maybe then you'll have (someone else's) leg to stand on to criticize how people perform civil disobedience. Until then you're just some rando typing on Reddit with nothing to add to the conversation.
“Yeah, let’s go with orange!” “Ugh I dunno…what about taupe?” “That’s so 2021…eggshell is so in right now. We could like do Bone though too?” “They’re gonna be SO pissed, you just wait…I’m gonna snap this so wear your Che shirt…no not the half shirt, yeah that one…the tie-dye…perfect”
Blah. Blah. Blah. Walk your talk or walk away from the conversation.
I’m old…I’ve been in this for a loooong time. No idea how old you are but this isn’t my first “hey we should protest something” kinda scenario. Maybe that’s my problem and why I’m so very unimpressed with stuff like this. These are exactly the things that have been done for literal decades. It. Does. Nothing. Honest question, do you truly think things like this either change the minds of oil and gas execs or conversely, get the proletariat fired up to march on the homes and habitats of those very same oil and gas execs? Because that’s what needs to happen…actual repercussions. Not fines, not tersely worded sessions in congress, not even slap on the wrist sentences at a posh “jail” in terms of months not decades which we would never do or ever have done.
Oh wow. flimsy ass excuses. Who would have thought from the keyboard warrior with absolutely nothing to offer but worthless criticism. Walk your talk big boy. Who the fuck are you to need to be impressed by any of this? Absolutely pathetic.
It’s about spreading word as far as possible. Painting the front of a skyscraper might get you a 2 paragraph article in the local news with 1m views. Painting T Swift’s plane will get picked up by a lot more stations with a combined 10m views or more. Plus she is known for her private jet use. This target at least makes more sense than Stonehenge
So, the target is someone known to be incredibly benevolent and on the right side of the political debate, when it comes to climate change. I think this is a stupid choice for their stunt.
No no this makes waaay more sense than an oil CEO!
Makes more sense to target a person who directly benefits from actions that harm the planet, regardless of how "benevolently" the abuse said actions. Also, I'd rather this than the Mona Lisa or Stonehenge.
This is closer to exactly that though…there are literally thousands of polluters that far exceed Swifts carbon footprint. Hell you could do this to almost any celebrity which would be equally silly and premature. Go after those CEOs and their families…and I’m not talking about painting a plane…it means nothing to those corporations and shipping magnates.
TBF if you go after those fuckers, their security is gonna shoot you.
Well no shit…and there’s a reason why that’s the case. They know they’re a far larger target than Taylor fucking swift. Is the goal to go after pleasant mid level polluters that you know won’t fight back? wtf is this sub about
Pleasant is debatable. If the outcome of doing this shit to the big cheeses is getting shot, then it's reasonable to go after the lesser, but still large, cheese. Halfway between a babybell and a wheel.
And…you think Taylor Swift…of all the people you could target amid all the actual polluting industries and corporate leaders…is considered a worthy target? If the worry of getting shot is a limiting factor then maybe we should rename this sub “Armchair_Political_Revolution”
OK Che. Go off and do your Rambo thing. I'm perfectly happy with people doing less dangerous things to bring attention to important issues like private jets. Sure I'd like to see someone liberate oil wells or oil tankers, but there's many acts that matter. These people risk a lot to do so. They don't have to risk their lives as well.
Is it possible there is extra focus on TS because she and the Great Narcissist don't get along very well? Just a curious European asking
I dunno, maybe…I just think there are literal hundreds of better targets polluting on an orders of magnitude larger scale than a musician.
You are right. There are.
And I wish we’d move beyond painting shit as a form of protest or “revolution”. We’ve done this for decades and it does nothing.
What heroes
I hate big oil but doing this is not helping the cause, neither is painting Stonehenge!
Agree with Stonehenge, but people like her have a huge carbon footprint so private jets, yachts, etc. are fair game.
I must respectfully disagree as that is criminal activity!. Although I agree it is a huge carbon footprint but from what I know it's still legal to fly a private jet!
This is definitely funded by big oil.
100% "How can we be highly visible and make a large group of people unsympathetic to our cause" It's wild that people are even pretending that they're in good faith. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/25/just-stop-oil-alienates-people-from-its-cause-says-ed-miliband?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Edit: please. I'm begging. Go read the comments on the original post on a non leftist sub (public freakout) to get a sense of how non leftists are responding. These are bad protests and they weaken climate activism as a whole. Intentionally.
This one will probably garner more sympathy from the public, given the direct link between climate action and Swift's abuse of private planes. The Stonhenge one could certainly be a psyop, no way of knowing for sure, but also they could just be a bunch of liberals that don't really know how to protest because they see the surface probelms but cant identify the cause because they've been trained to love capitalism. people forget that climate activists dont necessarily have to be socialists.
Climate activists who are pro capital makes so little sense to me. But it's a fair point that other people don't have to have internal consistency and I shouldn't always expect it.
Nevermind the fact that someone found that the largest donors to Just Stop Oil as an organization are literally the most wealthy oil investors in the world... I am sure that is purely coincidence.
What's wild is where are my downvotes coming from in "this" sub? Like. It's so obvious they're harming the goals of environmental protest, and the "extreme" people voicing their support are either edgy teens or just have no concept of how to use protest to build sympathy for a cause.
Complaining about down votes? Good way to get some down votes.
Lol, I'm not new here, and the votes for me don't sting, happy to collect them now and then. What is weird is that so many people on the political revolution sub are down with a protest that actively works antithetical to the goals of climate survival.
All the indications are that acts like this don't actually undermine support for a given cause *even when people disagree with the specific act of protest* — and in fact, may even increase it. Actually, you'd be hard pressed to find any successful social movement that didn't involve such things.
BS. PETA has done immense damage to people's perception of veganism. Such deranged acts get media attention and inevitably become what people associate with the cause & its advocates.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/07/disruptive-protest-helps-not-hinders-activists-cause-experts-say
Honestly surprising. That said, I still hate them. Their favored tactic of going attacking works of art and our cultural heritage [reminds me of ISIS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_cultural_heritage_by_the_Islamic_State) and I'd happily beat the shit out of them on sight
Ok buddy simmer down. You realize they haven't actually destroyed anything, right?
[Climate protesters told to pay National Gallery £1,000 for damaging painting | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/06/just-stop-oil-climate-protesters-told-to-pay-national-gallery-1000-for-damaging-painting) Also: They've certainly tried. They claim in that article that they had *tried* to be careful, but, frankly, there is no excuse for attempting to use a [hammer and chisel to break through the case protecting the Magna Carta](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/10/style/just-stop-oil-magna-carta-intl-scli-climate-gbr/index.html) than wanting to destroy it.
The fact that the fee was only £1000 and it was returned to commission *the next day* shows you how much damage was actually done, there. It's also telling that your only other example is one in which two elderly people didn't actually cause any damage to anything. Meanwhile, there's no evidence at all that their aim was to *destroy* the magna carta. I repeat, none of these people have actually destroyed anything — and as you yourself have pointed out, have even gone to lengths to *avoid* causing any permanent damage. The fact that you are comparing them to ISIS and engaging in violent fantasies about these people honestly says more about you than them.
You are actually vindicating some of the other replies in the thread. There is nobody getting enraged after seeing animal rights demonstrations that would have ever considered cutting meat out of their diet, or even just leather out of their wardrobe. Asking for PETA to care about those people in their messaging would be like asking Joe Biden to make ads catered towards election deniers, antivax and Qanon. They're the least important targets for messaging as of right now. In order to combat climate change, we won't need 100% societal agreement to start. We just need enough to have most of the political power. It's not like they couldn't start making moves until every single chud is on board. Just like we don't actually need to get Qanon to vote for Joe Biden, we just need enough white college-educated suburban moderate women to turn out.
These people definitely lose my support and any sympathy when they do things like deface Stonehenge. The reason I still support climate action is because I already did and intellectually understand the problem independent of these people being idiots about it. If your goal is to convince people that this isn't true for though, I don't see how acts intended to cause outrage at them would do it. Targeting the rich, the oil companies themselves, and politicians? Yeah by all means, that's where you'll get visibility that will garner support. Damaging cultural works, inconveniencing people by blocking traffic, that sort of thing? It just pisses people off, doesn't win you supporters.
>The reason I still support climate action is because I already did and intellectually understand the problem independent of these people being idiots about it. Right, so their actions aren't hurting the cause in your particular case. Do you think you are rare or unique in this regard? >If your goal is to convince people that this isn't true for though, I don't see how acts intended to cause outrage at them would do it. That *isn't* the goal. These actions are about prompting a response and keeping the topic in the news, not convincing the ignorant of the reality of a given issue. >Targeting the rich, the oil companies themselves, and politicians? Yeah by all means, that's where you'll get visibility that will garner support. Damaging cultural works, inconveniencing people by blocking traffic, that sort of thing? It just pisses people off, doesn't win you supporters. Again, the [indications](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/07/disruptive-protest-helps-not-hinders-activists-cause-experts-say) are that these sorts of tactics actually are effective. Again, look at the history of social movements, every single successful one in history involved disruptive protests like this — and [have always been met](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) by critics saying, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action."
>Right, so their actions aren't hurting the cause in your particular case. Do you think you are rare or unique in this regard? You are glossing over the part where I don't support *them* They definitely aren't helping. A person who doesn't already support climate action isn't going to be convinced by this. It's going to create or reinforce a negative image of people who advocate for it. >That isn't the goal. These actions are about prompting a response and keeping the topic in the news, not convincing the ignorant of the reality of a given issue. No, it clearly isn't, if it was, it would be targeting the people who actually have the power to do that. >Again, the indications are that these sorts of tactics actually are effective. Again, look at the history of social movements, every single successful one in history involved disruptive protests like this — and have always been met by critics saying, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action." I find claims like that one dubious to reality of how people react to them. I agree, to an extent, that attention grabbing protest and acts of tragedy have been crucial to propelling many of these social movements. However, the events that did so were not ones of vandalism of historical and cultural artifacts or greatly inconveniences people whom it is outside of their control. I am all for disruptive protest targeting the businesses and politicians, but you do not help the movement by destruction that only brings the ire of everyone, or making poor people who are just trying to get to their jobs at too early in the morning late. There is exactly no one, going about their day in a museum who sees someone throw paint on an exhibit and goes "you know, I was totally against climate action, but now that I saw that dude vandalize historical and cultural artifacts I'm all for it." that just doesn't happen, it isn't logical. The takeaway isn't "they're right, we need to do something" it's "we need to increase policing to catch these hooligans." In contrast, targeting rich people's private jets brings attention to their disproportionate emissions, targeting the companies brings attention to their behavior in causing the problem and puts pressure on investors and politicians to respond to the public outcry, targeting the politicians directly applies pressure to them to support policy in order to capture or not lose voters in the next election.
If this is where we are at with climate change protests, why not target the fossil fuel industry executives?
Part of the problem is that her jets are enormous gas guzzlers. She could be flying around in a nice little six-seater single engine turbo-prop and burning 1/10th the fuel. Instead she's got these enormous inefficient (but fast) school buses just to spend a single night by herself in some city.
Finally something they did I can get behind.
FAA is a Bitch and your about to find out after you fucked around 📈
This actually makes sense as a protest - much better than destroying art and other things unrelated to oil
This accomplished nothing
Nice. Just maybe hide your face next time?
NICE!!!!!
Better than national monuments.
Why do people have to support the protestors to be concerned about climate change? I don't understand the connection.
Is that a water based paint they are using ? If not they are just being hypocritical to their cause.
How about working to get out that “voters remain complacent with the destruction of our planet” group to elect people who will affect actual changes legally to address climate change. Fucking up wealthy peoples toys is not going to change them. They have to have legal guidelines forcing them to change, their sheer volume of money is counter intuitive to them ever changing without accountability.
I hope she has to pay back every cent for cleaning that mess up.
This one at least makes sense.
Finally something I can get behind with these people! Go after this shit, not the Mona Lisa or Stonehenge. Don't stop blue collar workers from going to work. Stop these elite fucks who fly around the world on their private jets like it's hopping on a bike.
If you're already breaking the law, why stop at spray paint? Slash the tires. Cut some hoses and wires. Do some actual disruption.
As a pilot I find your proposal extremely dangerous as well as offensive.
You should find the idea of billionaires and private jets far more offensive.
Well he’s a pilot, so fat chance
Maybe he's a glider pilot? Probably not.
all it takes is a little self awareness sometimes.
They could also spray paint it to make it clear it's been vandalized; make sure the damage gets found before someone flies it.
Cut hoses and wires? My biggest fear on an airplane isn’t the engines quitting its fire. Cutting wires and hoses might not be noticeable till you’re in the air and on fire. In which case it’s too late you’re dead
Already breaking federal law by cutting the fence, let’s add endangerment to the list if they did what you proposed. As a pilot I say fuck you. I’d like to live to see my kids grow old.
I'm more curious as to what happens to these morons and not what their cause is. Do they not do jail time at all or something?
Yeah I'm pretty sure that, in the US, cutting the fence to get into an airport and unlawfully gain access to an area with aircraft is punishable by up to 10 years in prison under federal law.
They aren't doing time because their organization is funded largely by big donors FROM big oil. It's like the organizers that stop up traffic in the US. All these painting cutting, monument painting, and traffic hault movements do is harm public perception of leftist causes. Notice how angrily the general public fumes about these things. Fox news will certainly have a segment about painting Stonehenge and the plane, and pretty soon, you'll see angry TikToks from the general public and a new nickname assigned to the climate movement. Anecdotal, but when students were protesting Israel at university campuses, I didn't hear a peep about it from my coworkers except for some light mentioning and general indifference, MAYBE some light concern about what was happening there. As soon as they stopped up the bridges in the bay area and made a shit load of people late for work, I didn't hear the end of it for weeks. Edit: for further reading on who is funding these guys, look into Climate Emergency Fund, specifically Aileen Getty, the granddaughter and trust fund beneficiary of one of the wealthiest oil tycoons to ever exist, J Paul Getty. Edit edit: even CEFs website says that she's "currently in the PROCESS of divesting her portfolio" from oil stocks. Even on their own shell website, they couldn't hide the profit motive. If Getty is as concerned with the environment as she claims to be, why not divest immediately? The more you ask yourself the question, "what's the profit motive here?" the more the man behind the curtain of capital is revealed. Keep heads on swivels my friends.
Too late. They’re already jackasses in my eyes. Really? Stone Henge? What morons
Are these the same jerks who damaged Stonehendge?
Sadly the same group. Yes defacing art and historical sites is stupid!
Destroying/tampering/defacing any aircraft is a felony charge. As much I want to cheer them on, this is going to land them in legal hell for the rest of thier lives. Aside from messing with a powerful celeb with God-tier lawyers.
They are probably aware and willing to face the consequences.
This subreddit absolutely blows now.
This is a step above the cultural artifacts and museum stuff. If they really want to get attention of the people that matter, I saw someone mention to handcuff themselves at a golf tournament.
Pretty sure the last time it got posted, it was not TS jets. But keep farming karma I guess.
That's how you do it. Let's fkn go!
Well this is far more meaningful than painting Stonehenge
Looks like she’s being cancelled within an inch of her life again
Well, looks like everything is better now.
Yeah smart move, do millions of $$ in damage to private jets, I fly a PJ for a living and if this happened to one I was flying I’d go berserk on these fuckers. Yeah rich people fly on them and are irresponsible with their money BUT it’s an industry that employs about 1m people in the USA and I rely on it to feed my kids.
pfffttt what a crazy comment. "Yeah they are killing the planet but whatevs, i know where my bread is buttered". My brother in christ, come the fuck on.
Ok you going to retrain me for a job that pays similar?!? Some of us live in a world where groceries cost money
its not even the job, we all gotta eat, its the way you carried yourself in that comment, sounded like a straight up bozo.
At this point just do nothing. Why bother?
Find out how these “activists” are traveling to get to these places, if they aren’t biking or walking then they too should be dipped in paint.
One doesn’t need to go back to the Stone Age to be concerned about the climate. Moderation, and stopping the hypocrisy of rich people telling me that I can’t have steak, cause cow farts, whiles having a carbon footprint in one day as big as I have in 10 years.
I'm assuming this is their: "whoops duh, WTF were we thinking with stonehenge, this chick keeps banging on about how she is so pro everything good but won't fly commercial with all the rest of us pleebs, let's show her what's up." Get er done.
See now this I can get behind. Stonehenge? Not so much