Just Stop Oil’s first protests were directly shutting down oil terminals, then oil companies bought private laws to stop that so they moved on to other, at the time legal, methods such as “slow marching”. These were then also made illegal. Also the sunflowers painting was covered in glass.
I’m still on the fence about Just Stop Oil. They “shut down” oil terminals for the span of a single Friday morning, but the blow back led to laws that are still on the book today.
Their operations seemed purposely created to create as much outrage as possible without actually effectively damaging the oil industry in any measurable way.
It doesn’t help that they were funded by a fucking Getty oil heiress. So it’s hard for me to determine if it was actually a false flag operation or just the good intentions of a incompetent billionaire.
Without showing my hand too much, I did do some actions with Just Stop Oil, so have some insight here.
The whole Getty thing has some basis in reality but has been ran with far too much. JSO received funding from the “Climate Emergency Fund”, who Getty co-founded. That group has donated money to 250 different NVDA groups, according to them. A vast majority of JSO’s funding came from donations from supporters.
While I obviously can’t really speak for anyone but myself, everyone I interacted with, including the founders, seemed 100% genuinely committed to the cause, if a bit misguided at times. You’re right about them trying to cause outrage, the whole idea was to keep the topic in the news, get JSO spokespeople interviewed etc. Everyone was well aware that we’d be treated with contempt but were okay with that, if it shifted the overton window a bit. There is theory behind this: Radical flank effect
Effectively damaging the oil industry is ideal, IMO, but it’s incompatible with being an “accountable” movement (i.e. chooses to get nicked), as you will spend your life in prison.
the blow back led to laws that are still on the book today.
Effectively, those laws were already in place. If the first time a tactic is used against powerful people, it is outlawed, it was never actually allowed. The laws getting passed at least shows people how the law is being used to benefit the rich and powerful. The previous unspoken rule gave the people in power plausible deniability. I’m not some huge fan of Just Stop Oil but the edges of the laws should always be probed by activists, imo.
the right way to protest is the one history tells us that works and mexico proved that it still does work in 2017.
the wrong way to protest is the way we’ve been conditioned to believe how protests work and exemplified by ineffectual examples like the “no kings” marches.
Just Stop Oil’s first protests were directly shutting down oil terminals, then oil companies bought private laws to stop that so they moved on to other, at the time legal, methods such as “slow marching”. These were then also made illegal. Also the sunflowers painting was covered in glass.
I’m still on the fence about Just Stop Oil. They “shut down” oil terminals for the span of a single Friday morning, but the blow back led to laws that are still on the book today.
Their operations seemed purposely created to create as much outrage as possible without actually effectively damaging the oil industry in any measurable way.
It doesn’t help that they were funded by a fucking Getty oil heiress. So it’s hard for me to determine if it was actually a false flag operation or just the good intentions of a incompetent billionaire.
Without showing my hand too much, I did do some actions with Just Stop Oil, so have some insight here.
The whole Getty thing has some basis in reality but has been ran with far too much. JSO received funding from the “Climate Emergency Fund”, who Getty co-founded. That group has donated money to 250 different NVDA groups, according to them. A vast majority of JSO’s funding came from donations from supporters.
While I obviously can’t really speak for anyone but myself, everyone I interacted with, including the founders, seemed 100% genuinely committed to the cause, if a bit misguided at times. You’re right about them trying to cause outrage, the whole idea was to keep the topic in the news, get JSO spokespeople interviewed etc. Everyone was well aware that we’d be treated with contempt but were okay with that, if it shifted the overton window a bit. There is theory behind this: Radical flank effect
Effectively damaging the oil industry is ideal, IMO, but it’s incompatible with being an “accountable” movement (i.e. chooses to get nicked), as you will spend your life in prison.
Effectively, those laws were already in place. If the first time a tactic is used against powerful people, it is outlawed, it was never actually allowed. The laws getting passed at least shows people how the law is being used to benefit the rich and powerful. The previous unspoken rule gave the people in power plausible deniability. I’m not some huge fan of Just Stop Oil but the edges of the laws should always be probed by activists, imo.
I remember when people were angry at Greenpeace for attempting to scale oil drilling platforms in the Arctic. So yeah.
Lots of people will spend all day arguing about what the right kind of protest is but much fewer people go out and do what they believe should be done
The right kind of protest seems to be the kind that doesn’t inconvience anybody.
the right way to protest is the one history tells us that works and mexico proved that it still does work in 2017.
the wrong way to protest is the way we’ve been conditioned to believe how protests work and exemplified by ineffectual examples like the “no kings” marches.
Because if you get arrested then you lose your job and becomes national news.
The meme seems to be ironic than actually saying that Doland is like that.
Should I mention that in meme title or description?