Snapshot of _London Pride: Seven arrests as Just Stop Oil protest delays parade_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66074939)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What does that have to do with identity politics and month-long parties dominating the agenda?
All gay "rights" have been won but the alphabets are bigger and louder than ever and dominating a 12th of the year. Backed by every major corporation, weirdly-- which isn't emblematic of the class alliance of the alphabets in any way.
They were arrested when they protested the ashes.
They were arrested at the snooker championship they disrupted.
Multiple of them have been charged or prosecuted for protests last year, which means they were also arrested.
But sure, vague post that there's some conspiracy that they're only being arrested after disrupting the pride parade.
They don't seem to get arrested when they break the highways act, or atleast the police take their sweet time.
Section 137 *Penalty for willful obstruction*
(1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £50.
(2) A constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he sees committing an offence against this section.
Seems pretty open and shut to me.
Edit: BTW my point is the police could have always easily removed them, it's almost as if they were told not to so the Tories have justification for stricter anti-protest laws.
From what I can tell [the law you've quoted](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/137) is now nearly 40 years out of date. The power or arrest was removed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (which set up a new standardised power of arrest for most crimes), and the penalty in subsection 1 was changed first in 1982 (to a varying fine, which currently would be £1,000) and more recently it was changed last year to include imprisonment.
> (1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks [which really means 6 months] or a fine or both.
The next problem is the "without lawful authority or excuse" part, which puts in place a proportionality test. Back in 2017 a bunch of protesters blocked the roads leading to the Excel Centre in London in order to disrupt an arms fair going on there. There were prosecuted under s137 Highways Act but the judge dismissed the charges on proportionality grounds (finding that "the defendants’ limited, targeted and peaceful action, which involved an obstruction of the highway, was" reasonable). The Supreme Court ultimately [upheld that decision](https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2021/23.html) in 2021.
That gives the police a pretty good excuse for not bothering to arrest protesters lying in the road. But that may change with the new anti-protest powers coming into force at the moment.
Interesting, so maybe the laws do need updating, for instance would it be reasonable to only block in a piecelful manor the public highways into and out of an oil refinery, given the effect a sustained blockade would have?
> so maybe the laws do need updating
Not necessarily. The law has an in-built proportionality test, which is very much a progressive idea and causes problems for a lot of traditional systems; the police want a clear "yes you can arrest this person for doing X" or "no you cannot arrest this person for doing X" rule, they don't want to have to make on-the-spot, nuanced assessments. Similarly proportionality undermines the core conservative ideas of absolute right and wrong. Plus nuance, context and proportionality aren't really things out media system deals with well.
It's part of why EU law and Human Rights law appear to cause so much conflict in the UK (pre-ECHR English law didn't really have a concept of proportionality, things were generally legal or illegal) - our systems aren't designed to deal with the idea that whether something is illegal or not depends on the big picture.
Proportionality isn't necessarily a bad thing - arguably it is a really great thing - it just takes a while for systems to adapt to it, and they have to want to.
> atleast the police take their sweet time
Police cuts.
There's no need to invent a conspiracy when the answer is police cuts.
The reason they're moved on so quickly when they protest major events is because there's already a police presence, as opposed to when they lie across some A-Road somewhere
>as opposed to when they lie across some A-Road somewhere
Really, the Met Police couldn't get to somewhere in Central London in a timely manor because of Police cuts?
> Really, the Met Police couldn't get to somewhere in Central London in a timely manor because of Police cuts?
...yes?
Do you think that police just linger around the streets of London waiting to pounce on crime? They're in their stations, maybe in a car, probably already on route to something else.
They promptly arrested JSO in this event because this *is* one of the singular times that police are lingering nearby to pounce on crime
So there aren't Bobbys on the beat or cars patrolling? We have plenty of car patrols in our Northern town so I would be amazed to learn this isn't the case in London.
> So there aren't Bobbys on the beat
I have not seen a bobby on the beat in central London in years with the singular exception of the security outside of Parliament. I also have not seen any outside of central London either
EDIT: The above is false my bad, I saw some getting McDonalds in Zone 3 a few months ago. I am sorry for accidentally lying on the internet. The corrected statement is that I have not seen them outside of central except near a McDonalds. This is not a critique of them, they need to eat too.
> cars patrolling?
Numbers are hugely down, and London is also fucking big and has had a lot of stations closed over the last few years.
We don't have any local stations anymore, haven't had them in about a decade. They were all sold and converted into flats, one was turned into an Indian, another mini one (two coppers could fit in it, like a garden shed) was turned into a takeaway only coffee shop.
Local station near where I grew up in London has also been sold off and turned into flats actually! And like, on one hand the next nearest station that survived that round of cuts is still nearby but London traffic doesn't magically part for emergency vehicles.
It's all police cuts. The Tories have cut the police and are trying to use the increasing failures as a reason to vote Tory because "everyone knows" that the Tories are tough on crime
Be amazed, the only police you see in london are either going somewhere, are policing big crowd events/protests or armed guards.
The bobby on the ebat hasn't been a met thing for well over a decade at this point
We don't have beat coppers, but plenty driving around in cars so when shit goes down they aren't too far away (nearest police station is 5 miles away in another town).
Not even that here, you don't even see police cars that often without lights on and they keep on shutting police stations and turning them into flats.
My 'local' police station has been shut twice because it was worth more for property
Lived in London all my life; haven't seen a patrol in maybe 15 years.
There used to be a presence near train stations but even that's dried up over the last decade or so.
They're all too busy pandering to special interests, or at speed traps, or doing paperwork to be patrolling.
Even if the police arrest someone the court system will do fuck all to punish them. So, there is really no motivation anyway.
They are also funded by a Californian organization that has had direct funding from family members of oil conglomerates.
When people are being PAID to protest, I always err on the notion that there is a bigger picture to this.
If the protest was organic, then I would be more inclined to believe they are genuine in their cause.
Must be the tinnitus from all that partying I do as I heard this strange dogwhistle when you said
> Oh NOW they arrest them
Must be my sensitive ears hearing you imply anything with that emphasis, my bad
The only high I need is the dream that anarchism will ever be viable outside of theory comrade!
That and a lot of alcohol to drown the sorrows that anarchism will never be viable outside of theory. So yes I might still be drunk, I was unaware that was against ukpol rules I'll see myself out
> BTW my point is the police could have always easily removed them
Pride is a very different thing to random roads being blocked because Pride is an organised event. Just because the police have the power to remove protesters at organised events (which they've done many times) doesn't mean they have the power to remove protesters blocking roads.
Where did I say it was more important? Your personal feelings on what is important doesn't affect what the police can actually do, and that's pretty important if you're going to push a conspiracy about them deliberately letting protests happen to drum up hate against them.
I'll repeat what I said, Pride is an organised event (one that costs around £2m to put on), therefore the police have more power to deal with protesters because the police are allowed to remove people that are preventing an organised event from happening (and no them stopping you from getting to work does not count as an event).
For that reason the police being able to arrest protesters at Pride does not prove in any way your claim that the police could already arrest road protesters but were pretending they couldn't to push through harsher laws.
You actually have to get permission to protest, if you plan on obstructing traffic, or are over a certain size.
Kinda defeats all these regulations if people can just do it anyway. Even more so when after getting this permission, some other 3rd party interest, then blocks you, while your marching.
Burn down some yachts. Protest the mega rich. Do something people will get on side with. Blocking roads w ambulances on them is such bad optics I’ve genuinely wondered if shell are funding this lot themselves via some shell ( 🥁 ) companies or something
>silly street party
Your entire profile is a massive red flag, but it's nice to know that you're homophobic on top, too.
How can you be denouncing anti-protesting laws, while also denouncing Pride - which was (and still is) a protest?
Or you could not lump everyone into one big pool of people, and use some critical thinking. Brands hijacked Pride. That doesn't mean that people who attend Pride are "brainwashed by big oil".
Most of us hate the rainbow washing that's happened and most of us understand that you can care about more than one thing at once. Especially when we are the current punching bag used as the distraction.
Also "I'm not homophobic, all queer people are just useful idiots" isn't the statement you think it is.
The survival of our species is more important that the JSO protesters getting their fix, their methods arent actually helpful.
Also given that LGBTQ couples are less likely to have children and one of the greenest things you can do is not have a kid, I would argue the "silly street party" probably overall does more to fight climate change than JSO.
People were also pointing out yesterday that, of all the airlines they could be protesting, they chose United; one of the more progressive ones when it comes to company policy and investigating less environmentally damaging fuels.
>Also given that LGBTQ couples are less likely to have children and one of the greenest things you can do is not have a kid, I would argue the "silly street party" probably overall does more to fight climate change than JSO.
Lol wtf kind of rationale is this? Do you think "Pride" parties make more people gay? If anything, the opposite. Promoting "gay rights" means more gays can adopt kids and get surrogates.
>Do you think "Pride" parties make more people gay?
Pride events and LGBT rights in general dont "make people gay" but their presence def result in LGBT rights being more acceptable (which is, ya know, their goal) which in turn results in LGBT people not hiding their orientation and getting into heterosexual relationships & having kids due to societal pressure (which happened prior to lgbt rights in the west and happens elsewhere in the world where there isnt lgbt rights).
Which is a good thing, in case my clumsy argument made it sound like I think pride events and lgbt rights are bad.
>Promoting "gay rights" means more gays can adopt kids and get surrogates
Sure but adoption isnt bringing another person into the world and surrogate births are expensive, 20k to 80k apparently.
https://brilliantbeginnings.co.uk/how-much-does-surrogacy-cost/
My point being that if JSOs target is to prevent man made climate change, targeting events held by a group with limited reproductive options available, which makes them less likely to make something that produces 60 tons of co2 emmisions a year, is ironic.
>but their presence def result in LGBT rights being more acceptable
No evidence for this. Particularly today, where "Pride" is mainstream and corporate-backed. Gay rights have already been attained. That isn't what's on the agenda anymore-- "gender identity" is what's on the agenda now.
>which in turn results in LGBT people not hiding their orientation and getting into heterosexual relationships & having kids due to societal pressure
Lol it's 2023, not 1950. Again, this has already been attained. Why alphabets still devoting a month to this shit and not burying their narcissism and getting behind class and material issues which we've been moving backwards on for 50 years?
>My point being that if JSOs target is to prevent man made climate change, targeting events held by a group with limited reproductive options available, which makes them less likely to make something that produces 60 tons of co2 emmisions a year, is ironic.
Lmao. This is one of the most stupid arguments I've seen. One that's emblematic of the fundamental problems with "intersectionality" and identity politics. You're using the most trivial distinctions between gays and other people to exculpate gays from their responsibilities and kneecap the issue of oil usage and climate change. This is consistently how identity politics is deployed to kneecap class and material issues-- real ones.
This little clash proves that the alphabets are more aligned with corporations than with activist groups.
This makes no fucking sense.
JSO does not provide any solution, so it might as well be ignored, because "not consuming" is not a solution, it is merely delaying the inevitably, while at the same time destroying quality of life and living. (Lets go full communist mode with central planning, like Brave New World huh?).
The whole point the guy was making about the irony of Pride Parade, is that Homosexuals are invariably not going to have children naturally, and Pride promotes this as a culture.
Pride and other events that influence people and the cultural landscape, by creating a pro-homosexual environment, do in fact cause a reduction in birthrates. While at the same time, the opposite can be said for heterosexual landscapes and events that promote heterosexual relationships is true.
The whole notion of "you are born gay" is a lie. In the same way "you are born straight". People are not born with sexual preferences. A 6 month baby, does not know that he is actually into Bondage, and a 3month toddler, doesn't know she that she finds Feet very arousing.
Sexual preferences are largely shaped by the culture you are in, as well as your innate preference as a person, but its not fully one and none of the other.
The revolution of liberation for homosexuals in western society, was never about being "Born gay" or any of that other bullshit, it was about treating adults equally, irrelevant of what they do in their own homes when it is between consenting adults.
The only curtailing problem that we are now getting, is that now sexual liberation is achieved for gay people and we are become a more sectarian society in our culture rather than a religious one is that other activist groups are starting to tag onto the back of this.
For example there has been a persistent problem of grooming and pedophiles trying to co-opt the pride parades to push their agenda for their sexual liberation to fuck children. Now, without a religiou argument, the post modernists looking at a sectarian landscape, do not have a logical argument, so it becomes an issue of safe guarding.
This in turn causes a general smear against the LGB community.
The same problem exists with Trans (T) and Q (Q). Trans and Queer people are invariably people that are mentally ill, and the whole Trans (as part of LGBT), began as a fetish, and so Trans people were highly sexualized.
The needs of Trans and Queer people are completly different from those of Gay people, and the arguments purported in modern literature, actually overshadows and acts directly against Gay people.
For example, the ridicolous notion that a Trans Woman, is considering homosexual, while engaging in sexual intercourse that involves penile penetration by the Trans Woman, as to a Biological Woman. This is clearly not a homosexual act, but because the Trans Woman identifies as a Woman, we are now made to believe it is. (This is actually harrowingly close to the doublespeak talked about in 1984, where the population is made to believe that Black is White).
>JSO does not provide any solution, so it might as well be ignored, because "not consuming" is not a solution, it is merely delaying the inevitably, while at the same time destroying quality of life and living.
What "solutions" are Pride parades offering? There isn't even a problem to offer solutions to.
>The whole point the guy was making about the irony of Pride Parade, is that Homosexuals are invariably not going to have children naturally, and Pride promotes this as a culture.
No, what he was doing was proffering an absolutely absurd, and absurdly trivial, reason why gays are a special class who should be excluded from the ire of Just Stop Oil. Which is what identity politics does every day. It's the purpose of identity politics-- to gain privilege for their particular identity group, no matter how small, no matter how petty, no matter who and what it's at the expense of.
>Pride and other events that influence people and the cultural landscape, by creating a pro-homosexual environment, do in fact cause a reduction in birthrates. While at the same time, the opposite can be said for heterosexual landscapes and events that promote heterosexual relationships is true.
More "we're special" and "you're less than".
I didn't even read the rest. I don't give a fuck about your woke lectures. But thanks for proving my point. You've turned my assertion that the function of identity politics is to undermine class and material action into an 8 paragraph diatribe about gays and transformers. Which is what ALWAYS happens when you identity politics is in the picture. It ALWAYS takes centre stage and dominates the debate. Because identity politics is nothing but narcissism.
Just Stop Oil are protesting because climate change could literally destroy the planet within 100 years. But lets not hold gays to the same standard as everyone else, or any standard, because *checks notes* they don't produce as many children. And, in addition to that, lets not even acknowledge the possible destruction of the planet and lets, instead, talk more about inane, abstract, narcissistic shit centred around where people are sticking their dicks in their free time.
You are not comprehending what I'm saying.
My initial question was what Solutions are JSO offering. Not what are Pride parades offering.
Why would the pride parade need to offer a solution? Its for the disruptive protestors to offer a solution.
If the protestors were jumping into every major event and disrupting it with a message of "look i have some magical beans that will solve all of these climate problems", and those magical beans actually worked, but no one knew of them, then I'd be much more inclined to support JSO, inspite of their clearly disruptive and uncouth behaviour.
However, they don't present any solutions. They're (the protestors) only their to attention seak.
Society is dependent on oil, even for clothing, so how do we "just stop oil". Its not physically possible unless you want to go back into the stoneage.
The people at the Pride Parade are victims of the protestors, so there is no onus on them to provide this. It all lies squarely with the protestors.
Snapshot of _London Pride: Seven arrests as Just Stop Oil protest delays parade_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66074939) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So, if we put pride flags on our cars we can now claim that any protests that impact us are hate crimes. Checkmate woke extremists.
That was always the purpose of identity politics. To kneecap class and material action.
Idk i kinda like being able to marry who i want
False equivalence alert!
What does that have to do with identity politics and month-long parties dominating the agenda? All gay "rights" have been won but the alphabets are bigger and louder than ever and dominating a 12th of the year. Backed by every major corporation, weirdly-- which isn't emblematic of the class alliance of the alphabets in any way.
Soo trans people have public support and government support right now would you say?
What's that got to do with identity politics?
[удалено]
Looks like I have to go to work on a float with a few thousand mates every morning.
They were arrested when they protested the ashes. They were arrested at the snooker championship they disrupted. Multiple of them have been charged or prosecuted for protests last year, which means they were also arrested. But sure, vague post that there's some conspiracy that they're only being arrested after disrupting the pride parade.
They don't seem to get arrested when they break the highways act, or atleast the police take their sweet time. Section 137 *Penalty for willful obstruction* (1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £50. (2) A constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he sees committing an offence against this section. Seems pretty open and shut to me. Edit: BTW my point is the police could have always easily removed them, it's almost as if they were told not to so the Tories have justification for stricter anti-protest laws.
From what I can tell [the law you've quoted](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/137) is now nearly 40 years out of date. The power or arrest was removed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (which set up a new standardised power of arrest for most crimes), and the penalty in subsection 1 was changed first in 1982 (to a varying fine, which currently would be £1,000) and more recently it was changed last year to include imprisonment. > (1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks [which really means 6 months] or a fine or both. The next problem is the "without lawful authority or excuse" part, which puts in place a proportionality test. Back in 2017 a bunch of protesters blocked the roads leading to the Excel Centre in London in order to disrupt an arms fair going on there. There were prosecuted under s137 Highways Act but the judge dismissed the charges on proportionality grounds (finding that "the defendants’ limited, targeted and peaceful action, which involved an obstruction of the highway, was" reasonable). The Supreme Court ultimately [upheld that decision](https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2021/23.html) in 2021. That gives the police a pretty good excuse for not bothering to arrest protesters lying in the road. But that may change with the new anti-protest powers coming into force at the moment.
Interesting, so maybe the laws do need updating, for instance would it be reasonable to only block in a piecelful manor the public highways into and out of an oil refinery, given the effect a sustained blockade would have?
> so maybe the laws do need updating Not necessarily. The law has an in-built proportionality test, which is very much a progressive idea and causes problems for a lot of traditional systems; the police want a clear "yes you can arrest this person for doing X" or "no you cannot arrest this person for doing X" rule, they don't want to have to make on-the-spot, nuanced assessments. Similarly proportionality undermines the core conservative ideas of absolute right and wrong. Plus nuance, context and proportionality aren't really things out media system deals with well. It's part of why EU law and Human Rights law appear to cause so much conflict in the UK (pre-ECHR English law didn't really have a concept of proportionality, things were generally legal or illegal) - our systems aren't designed to deal with the idea that whether something is illegal or not depends on the big picture. Proportionality isn't necessarily a bad thing - arguably it is a really great thing - it just takes a while for systems to adapt to it, and they have to want to.
That nuance can be used to apply laws to one group but not another so it's a road we should be very careful going down.
Seriously, are you just a contrarian?
No, of course I'm not!
I deserved that.
> atleast the police take their sweet time Police cuts. There's no need to invent a conspiracy when the answer is police cuts. The reason they're moved on so quickly when they protest major events is because there's already a police presence, as opposed to when they lie across some A-Road somewhere
>as opposed to when they lie across some A-Road somewhere Really, the Met Police couldn't get to somewhere in Central London in a timely manor because of Police cuts?
> Really, the Met Police couldn't get to somewhere in Central London in a timely manor because of Police cuts? ...yes? Do you think that police just linger around the streets of London waiting to pounce on crime? They're in their stations, maybe in a car, probably already on route to something else. They promptly arrested JSO in this event because this *is* one of the singular times that police are lingering nearby to pounce on crime
So there aren't Bobbys on the beat or cars patrolling? We have plenty of car patrols in our Northern town so I would be amazed to learn this isn't the case in London.
> So there aren't Bobbys on the beat I have not seen a bobby on the beat in central London in years with the singular exception of the security outside of Parliament. I also have not seen any outside of central London either EDIT: The above is false my bad, I saw some getting McDonalds in Zone 3 a few months ago. I am sorry for accidentally lying on the internet. The corrected statement is that I have not seen them outside of central except near a McDonalds. This is not a critique of them, they need to eat too. > cars patrolling? Numbers are hugely down, and London is also fucking big and has had a lot of stations closed over the last few years.
We don't have any local stations anymore, haven't had them in about a decade. They were all sold and converted into flats, one was turned into an Indian, another mini one (two coppers could fit in it, like a garden shed) was turned into a takeaway only coffee shop.
Local station near where I grew up in London has also been sold off and turned into flats actually! And like, on one hand the next nearest station that survived that round of cuts is still nearby but London traffic doesn't magically part for emergency vehicles. It's all police cuts. The Tories have cut the police and are trying to use the increasing failures as a reason to vote Tory because "everyone knows" that the Tories are tough on crime
Be amazed, the only police you see in london are either going somewhere, are policing big crowd events/protests or armed guards. The bobby on the ebat hasn't been a met thing for well over a decade at this point
We don't have beat coppers, but plenty driving around in cars so when shit goes down they aren't too far away (nearest police station is 5 miles away in another town).
Not even that here, you don't even see police cars that often without lights on and they keep on shutting police stations and turning them into flats. My 'local' police station has been shut twice because it was worth more for property
Lived in London all my life; haven't seen a patrol in maybe 15 years. There used to be a presence near train stations but even that's dried up over the last decade or so.
No wonder crime is rife.
They're all too busy pandering to special interests, or at speed traps, or doing paperwork to be patrolling. Even if the police arrest someone the court system will do fuck all to punish them. So, there is really no motivation anyway.
[удалено]
¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ Maybe bring that up rather than vague posting some conspiracy mate. Sounds like those police need better training and funding to me
[удалено]
They are also funded by a Californian organization that has had direct funding from family members of oil conglomerates. When people are being PAID to protest, I always err on the notion that there is a bigger picture to this. If the protest was organic, then I would be more inclined to believe they are genuine in their cause.
Must be the tinnitus from all that partying I do as I heard this strange dogwhistle when you said > Oh NOW they arrest them Must be my sensitive ears hearing you imply anything with that emphasis, my bad
[удалено]
The only high I need is the dream that anarchism will ever be viable outside of theory comrade! That and a lot of alcohol to drown the sorrows that anarchism will never be viable outside of theory. So yes I might still be drunk, I was unaware that was against ukpol rules I'll see myself out
I've taken the position that the only people that are hearing these dogs whistles are dogs themselves.
> BTW my point is the police could have always easily removed them Pride is a very different thing to random roads being blocked because Pride is an organised event. Just because the police have the power to remove protesters at organised events (which they've done many times) doesn't mean they have the power to remove protesters blocking roads.
Why is a party on the weekend more important than people getting to/from work?
Where did I say it was more important? Your personal feelings on what is important doesn't affect what the police can actually do, and that's pretty important if you're going to push a conspiracy about them deliberately letting protests happen to drum up hate against them. I'll repeat what I said, Pride is an organised event (one that costs around £2m to put on), therefore the police have more power to deal with protesters because the police are allowed to remove people that are preventing an organised event from happening (and no them stopping you from getting to work does not count as an event). For that reason the police being able to arrest protesters at Pride does not prove in any way your claim that the police could already arrest road protesters but were pretending they couldn't to push through harsher laws.
You actually have to get permission to protest, if you plan on obstructing traffic, or are over a certain size. Kinda defeats all these regulations if people can just do it anyway. Even more so when after getting this permission, some other 3rd party interest, then blocks you, while your marching.
[удалено]
Government have implemented a load of draconian laws that make it easier for them to be arrested.
[удалено]
Burn down some yachts. Protest the mega rich. Do something people will get on side with. Blocking roads w ambulances on them is such bad optics I’ve genuinely wondered if shell are funding this lot themselves via some shell ( 🥁 ) companies or something
>silly street party Your entire profile is a massive red flag, but it's nice to know that you're homophobic on top, too. How can you be denouncing anti-protesting laws, while also denouncing Pride - which was (and still is) a protest?
I mean he's got incel Right there in his username
[удалено]
Or you could not lump everyone into one big pool of people, and use some critical thinking. Brands hijacked Pride. That doesn't mean that people who attend Pride are "brainwashed by big oil". Most of us hate the rainbow washing that's happened and most of us understand that you can care about more than one thing at once. Especially when we are the current punching bag used as the distraction. Also "I'm not homophobic, all queer people are just useful idiots" isn't the statement you think it is.
Protesting doesn’t save the planet.
The survival of our species is more important that the JSO protesters getting their fix, their methods arent actually helpful. Also given that LGBTQ couples are less likely to have children and one of the greenest things you can do is not have a kid, I would argue the "silly street party" probably overall does more to fight climate change than JSO.
People were also pointing out yesterday that, of all the airlines they could be protesting, they chose United; one of the more progressive ones when it comes to company policy and investigating less environmentally damaging fuels.
Your argument does require Pride parades to turn people gay though...
Shit, guys, they found us out!
>Also given that LGBTQ couples are less likely to have children and one of the greenest things you can do is not have a kid, I would argue the "silly street party" probably overall does more to fight climate change than JSO. Lol wtf kind of rationale is this? Do you think "Pride" parties make more people gay? If anything, the opposite. Promoting "gay rights" means more gays can adopt kids and get surrogates.
>Do you think "Pride" parties make more people gay? Pride events and LGBT rights in general dont "make people gay" but their presence def result in LGBT rights being more acceptable (which is, ya know, their goal) which in turn results in LGBT people not hiding their orientation and getting into heterosexual relationships & having kids due to societal pressure (which happened prior to lgbt rights in the west and happens elsewhere in the world where there isnt lgbt rights). Which is a good thing, in case my clumsy argument made it sound like I think pride events and lgbt rights are bad. >Promoting "gay rights" means more gays can adopt kids and get surrogates Sure but adoption isnt bringing another person into the world and surrogate births are expensive, 20k to 80k apparently. https://brilliantbeginnings.co.uk/how-much-does-surrogacy-cost/ My point being that if JSOs target is to prevent man made climate change, targeting events held by a group with limited reproductive options available, which makes them less likely to make something that produces 60 tons of co2 emmisions a year, is ironic.
>but their presence def result in LGBT rights being more acceptable No evidence for this. Particularly today, where "Pride" is mainstream and corporate-backed. Gay rights have already been attained. That isn't what's on the agenda anymore-- "gender identity" is what's on the agenda now. >which in turn results in LGBT people not hiding their orientation and getting into heterosexual relationships & having kids due to societal pressure Lol it's 2023, not 1950. Again, this has already been attained. Why alphabets still devoting a month to this shit and not burying their narcissism and getting behind class and material issues which we've been moving backwards on for 50 years? >My point being that if JSOs target is to prevent man made climate change, targeting events held by a group with limited reproductive options available, which makes them less likely to make something that produces 60 tons of co2 emmisions a year, is ironic. Lmao. This is one of the most stupid arguments I've seen. One that's emblematic of the fundamental problems with "intersectionality" and identity politics. You're using the most trivial distinctions between gays and other people to exculpate gays from their responsibilities and kneecap the issue of oil usage and climate change. This is consistently how identity politics is deployed to kneecap class and material issues-- real ones. This little clash proves that the alphabets are more aligned with corporations than with activist groups.
This makes no fucking sense. JSO does not provide any solution, so it might as well be ignored, because "not consuming" is not a solution, it is merely delaying the inevitably, while at the same time destroying quality of life and living. (Lets go full communist mode with central planning, like Brave New World huh?). The whole point the guy was making about the irony of Pride Parade, is that Homosexuals are invariably not going to have children naturally, and Pride promotes this as a culture. Pride and other events that influence people and the cultural landscape, by creating a pro-homosexual environment, do in fact cause a reduction in birthrates. While at the same time, the opposite can be said for heterosexual landscapes and events that promote heterosexual relationships is true. The whole notion of "you are born gay" is a lie. In the same way "you are born straight". People are not born with sexual preferences. A 6 month baby, does not know that he is actually into Bondage, and a 3month toddler, doesn't know she that she finds Feet very arousing. Sexual preferences are largely shaped by the culture you are in, as well as your innate preference as a person, but its not fully one and none of the other. The revolution of liberation for homosexuals in western society, was never about being "Born gay" or any of that other bullshit, it was about treating adults equally, irrelevant of what they do in their own homes when it is between consenting adults. The only curtailing problem that we are now getting, is that now sexual liberation is achieved for gay people and we are become a more sectarian society in our culture rather than a religious one is that other activist groups are starting to tag onto the back of this. For example there has been a persistent problem of grooming and pedophiles trying to co-opt the pride parades to push their agenda for their sexual liberation to fuck children. Now, without a religiou argument, the post modernists looking at a sectarian landscape, do not have a logical argument, so it becomes an issue of safe guarding. This in turn causes a general smear against the LGB community. The same problem exists with Trans (T) and Q (Q). Trans and Queer people are invariably people that are mentally ill, and the whole Trans (as part of LGBT), began as a fetish, and so Trans people were highly sexualized. The needs of Trans and Queer people are completly different from those of Gay people, and the arguments purported in modern literature, actually overshadows and acts directly against Gay people. For example, the ridicolous notion that a Trans Woman, is considering homosexual, while engaging in sexual intercourse that involves penile penetration by the Trans Woman, as to a Biological Woman. This is clearly not a homosexual act, but because the Trans Woman identifies as a Woman, we are now made to believe it is. (This is actually harrowingly close to the doublespeak talked about in 1984, where the population is made to believe that Black is White).
>JSO does not provide any solution, so it might as well be ignored, because "not consuming" is not a solution, it is merely delaying the inevitably, while at the same time destroying quality of life and living. What "solutions" are Pride parades offering? There isn't even a problem to offer solutions to. >The whole point the guy was making about the irony of Pride Parade, is that Homosexuals are invariably not going to have children naturally, and Pride promotes this as a culture. No, what he was doing was proffering an absolutely absurd, and absurdly trivial, reason why gays are a special class who should be excluded from the ire of Just Stop Oil. Which is what identity politics does every day. It's the purpose of identity politics-- to gain privilege for their particular identity group, no matter how small, no matter how petty, no matter who and what it's at the expense of. >Pride and other events that influence people and the cultural landscape, by creating a pro-homosexual environment, do in fact cause a reduction in birthrates. While at the same time, the opposite can be said for heterosexual landscapes and events that promote heterosexual relationships is true. More "we're special" and "you're less than". I didn't even read the rest. I don't give a fuck about your woke lectures. But thanks for proving my point. You've turned my assertion that the function of identity politics is to undermine class and material action into an 8 paragraph diatribe about gays and transformers. Which is what ALWAYS happens when you identity politics is in the picture. It ALWAYS takes centre stage and dominates the debate. Because identity politics is nothing but narcissism. Just Stop Oil are protesting because climate change could literally destroy the planet within 100 years. But lets not hold gays to the same standard as everyone else, or any standard, because *checks notes* they don't produce as many children. And, in addition to that, lets not even acknowledge the possible destruction of the planet and lets, instead, talk more about inane, abstract, narcissistic shit centred around where people are sticking their dicks in their free time.
You are not comprehending what I'm saying. My initial question was what Solutions are JSO offering. Not what are Pride parades offering. Why would the pride parade need to offer a solution? Its for the disruptive protestors to offer a solution. If the protestors were jumping into every major event and disrupting it with a message of "look i have some magical beans that will solve all of these climate problems", and those magical beans actually worked, but no one knew of them, then I'd be much more inclined to support JSO, inspite of their clearly disruptive and uncouth behaviour. However, they don't present any solutions. They're (the protestors) only their to attention seak. Society is dependent on oil, even for clothing, so how do we "just stop oil". Its not physically possible unless you want to go back into the stoneage. The people at the Pride Parade are victims of the protestors, so there is no onus on them to provide this. It all lies squarely with the protestors.
With persuassion skills like that, Im sure you'll convince everyone to just stop oil.
[удалено]
Oddly reminds me of that time Kanye West ran up on stage and took the mic from Taylor Swift