Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1235
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:08 am

Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3387
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:43 am

lol
Born at 356.32 ppm CO2 #ShowYourStripes

EACLucifer
Snowbonk
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by EACLucifer » Sat Sep 05, 2020 10:26 am

Well I suppose it's better than blocking people from saying goodbye to their dying relatives, but they can still f.ck off.

User avatar
lpm
After Pie
Posts: 1617
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by lpm » Sat Sep 05, 2020 11:23 am

Yeah, delaying THE SUN. That's the end of democracy. They can f.ck off.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

EACLucifer
Snowbonk
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by EACLucifer » Sat Sep 05, 2020 11:42 am

lpm wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 11:23 am
Yeah, delaying THE SUN. That's the end of democracy. They can f.ck off.
Well they've delayed a lot more than just the Sun. My parents, for example, are rather annoyed about not having their usual copy of the Guardian.

Still, I suppose it is better than trying to shut down environmentally friendly mass transit in one of the poorest parts of the capital.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3387
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:04 pm

How did the Guardian end up getting delayed? It's not one of the papers printed at the protested locations.
The presses print the Rupert Murdoch-owned News Corp titles including the Sun, the Times, the Sun on Sunday, the Sunday Times, and the Scottish Sun. They also print the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph, the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, and the London Evening Standard.
Born at 356.32 ppm CO2 #ShowYourStripes

EACLucifer
Snowbonk
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by EACLucifer » Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:18 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:04 pm
How did the Guardian end up getting delayed? It's not one of the papers printed at the protested locations.
The presses print the Rupert Murdoch-owned News Corp titles including the Sun, the Times, the Sun on Sunday, the Sunday Times, and the Scottish Sun. They also print the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph, the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, and the London Evening Standard.
I'm guessing that the entire distibution network is disrupted trying to fit round these idiots and their tantrums.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3387
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:34 pm

They've got a point, though, haven't they?

All the sensible people talking sensibly about climate change for decades has achieved jack sh.t.
Born at 356.32 ppm CO2 #ShowYourStripes

User avatar
dyqik
After Pie
Posts: 2186
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by dyqik » Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:41 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:18 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:04 pm
How did the Guardian end up getting delayed? It's not one of the papers printed at the protested locations.
The presses print the Rupert Murdoch-owned News Corp titles including the Sun, the Times, the Sun on Sunday, the Sunday Times, and the Scottish Sun. They also print the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph, the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, and the London Evening Standard.
I'm guessing that the entire distibution network is disrupted trying to fit round these idiots and their tantrums.
No, the internet is still working, and makes up the majority of the news industry's distribution network.

User avatar
discovolante
After Pie
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by discovolante » Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:45 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:34 pm
They've got a point, though, haven't they?

All the sensible people talking sensibly about climate change for decades has achieved jack sh.t.
Thread here about perceptions of XR/climate change etc, with suggestions about what it could do to improve its effectiveness: https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1 ... 87872?s=20

IMO, and I would really love to find a place to discuss this properly with people who know what they're talking about because these are just my disorganized thoughts, is that XR has a big organizational problem in that it is an 'affinity'/horizontally organised group, so people can easily do stupid stuff in its name. A good reason for having that sort of organisational structure is that it prevents dominance by certain people with particular agendas or views (I might be wrong but I don't think that the controversy regarding Roger Hallam has been given too much mainstream attention), and I suppose arguably helps to avoid replicating the structural hierarchies you get in society. But on the flip side to that, it seems they haven't really managed to achieve an egalitarian structure. I think the 'use your privilege to get arrested' approach started with the best of intentions but lots of people have now realised the big problem with this, but it's also now a bit too late to really change it, at least not without substantial resistance from people who see it as a 'woke' agenda (yes they exist within XR too) and a distraction from the 'real' work. I have no idea how prevalent those views are, but I suppose the point is if you have a non-hierarchical structure it's also difficult to impose a different agenda where that agenda is historically strongly resisted, even among supposedly 'progressive' people.
don't get any big ideas, they're not gonna happen

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3387
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:08 pm

That is a good thread, and I agree that the decentralised nature of XR (like BLM) makes it vulnerable to the unwise actions of a minority giving it a bad name.

I think it's also fair to say that this kind of stunt doesn't persuade anybody, and that a lot of people will react by being annoyed at facing some personal inconvenience today rather than reflecting on the much greater inconvenience they and everyone else will face in the next decades.

But I'm not sure the point is to persuade. As that twitter thread says, almost everyone is already persuaded. Scientists and most mainstream politicians agree on the necessity of tackling the climate emergency. The fossil fuel industry has acknowledged the severity of the problem, internally, for ages. The response has been a mix of lies, prevarication, waffle, and ineffectual gestures (some well-intentioned).

Persuading people that there's a problem doesn't seem to be worth much - they also need to be "encouraged" to take useful action, immediately. Perhaps being really, really annoying will be more effective than being correct and polite has been. One of the reasons given constantly to justify watered-down climate plans is that taking action would be difficult and inconvenient today, whereas climate change is merely catastrophic tomorrow. If feckless inaction becomes equally difficult and inconvenient today, the balance of motivations shifts in favour of actually fixing the problem.

It's basically strike action by those who are able and motivated enough to put the climate near the top of their list of priorities. Plenty of people have it on their list somewhere, but rank it as less important than getting their Sunday newspaper on time or having an orderly commute to their job. The message to those people needs to be: "disruption will only get worse as the climate crisis intensifies. If you want XR to stop being annoying, direct your anger towards those in charge till they commit to worthwhile, binding, emissions-reduction targets."

(I'm not involved with XR at all, fwiw)
Born at 356.32 ppm CO2 #ShowYourStripes

User avatar
Woodchopper
After Pie
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by Woodchopper » Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:57 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:08 pm

Persuading people that there's a problem doesn't seem to be worth much - they also need to be "encouraged" to take useful action, immediately. Perhaps being really, really annoying will be more effective than being correct and polite has been. One of the reasons given constantly to justify watered-down climate plans is that taking action would be difficult and inconvenient today, whereas climate change is merely catastrophic tomorrow. If feckless inaction becomes equally difficult and inconvenient today, the balance of motivations shifts in favour of actually fixing the problem.

The Covid response in the UK has shown again that the population is willing to endure a lot in order to protect the most vulnerable. People have accepted massive government spending (which willbe paid for via taxation), loss of income and widespread restrictions on freedoms. There doesn't seem to be a problem with people's ability for self-sacrifice for others as long as they believe that its necessary.

The UK population is also capable of taking action and planning for decades in the future. The government regularly spends huge sums on infrastructure projects that'll be around for decades. A majority of the population takes on housing debt, or has an occupational pension, both of which involve planning for events decades in the future.

A clear majority of the population believes in the existence of global warming caused by humans.

I don't think that the lack of action is due to lack of knowledge, or to an inability to make sacrifices today in order to benefit tomorrow.

It seems to me that instead there is a collective action problem. People are unwilling to make sacrifices if they believe that others aren't going to do the same.

This works in two ways, firstly, as we saw with Cummings' trip to Durham, even one person being seen to not sacrifice has a powerful symbolic effect. As soon as it stops being a case of 'we're all in this together' then people feel much less motivated to make sacrifices.

Secondly, and especially with climate change, people wan't to know that their sacrifice will actually help to result in positive outcome. Someone might be willing to, say, never use air travel again if they believed that doing so was going to be part of an effort to stop global warming. They will be very much less likely to be willing if they assume that overall the rest of the will will keep using air travel emissions keep rising. The person who stopped flying made a sacrifice, but for no benefit for anyone else.

Collective action problems are very difficult at a global scale. There is no world government that can enforce agreements to reduce carbon emissions (sure there are treaties, but ultimately the US, China etc have been able to ignore them with impunity).
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:08 pm
It's basically strike action by those who are able and motivated enough to put the climate near the top of their list of priorities. Plenty of people have it on their list somewhere, but rank it as less important than getting their Sunday newspaper on time or having an orderly commute to their job. The message to those people needs to be: "disruption will only get worse as the climate crisis intensifies. If you want XR to stop being annoying, direct your anger towards those in charge till they commit to worthwhile, binding, emissions-reduction targets."
My problem is that actions like this will serve to highlight the existence of the collective action problem. If the message is that we'll keep pissing you off until you do something then that message also reinforces the notion that most people aren't motivated.

plodder
Catbabel
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by plodder » Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:47 pm

XR not having a formal structure means it will be easier to resist entryists like the SWP. When you see it gaining a formal structure that’ll likely be because the SWP are onboard and are taking over. Feel free to replace SWP with “the police” btw. The two probably have a fair amount of overlap.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3387
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:53 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:57 am
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:08 pm

Persuading people that there's a problem doesn't seem to be worth much - they also need to be "encouraged" to take useful action, immediately. Perhaps being really, really annoying will be more effective than being correct and polite has been. One of the reasons given constantly to justify watered-down climate plans is that taking action would be difficult and inconvenient today, whereas climate change is merely catastrophic tomorrow. If feckless inaction becomes equally difficult and inconvenient today, the balance of motivations shifts in favour of actually fixing the problem.

The Covid response in the UK has shown again that the population is willing to endure a lot in order to protect the most vulnerable. People have accepted massive government spending (which willbe paid for via taxation), loss of income and widespread restrictions on freedoms. There doesn't seem to be a problem with people's ability for self-sacrifice for others as long as they believe that its necessary.

The UK population is also capable of taking action and planning for decades in the future. The government regularly spends huge sums on infrastructure projects that'll be around for decades. A majority of the population takes on housing debt, or has an occupational pension, both of which involve planning for events decades in the future.

A clear majority of the population believes in the existence of global warming caused by humans.

I don't think that the lack of action is due to lack of knowledge, or to an inability to make sacrifices today in order to benefit tomorrow.

It seems to me that instead there is a collective action problem. People are unwilling to make sacrifices if they believe that others aren't going to do the same.

This works in two ways, firstly, as we saw with Cummings' trip to Durham, even one person being seen to not sacrifice has a powerful symbolic effect. As soon as it stops being a case of 'we're all in this together' then people feel much less motivated to make sacrifices.

Secondly, and especially with climate change, people wan't to know that their sacrifice will actually help to result in positive outcome. Someone might be willing to, say, never use air travel again if they believed that doing so was going to be part of an effort to stop global warming. They will be very much less likely to be willing if they assume that overall the rest of the will will keep using air travel emissions keep rising. The person who stopped flying made a sacrifice, but for no benefit for anyone else.

Collective action problems are very difficult at a global scale. There is no world government that can enforce agreements to reduce carbon emissions (sure there are treaties, but ultimately the US, China etc have been able to ignore them with impunity).
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:08 pm
It's basically strike action by those who are able and motivated enough to put the climate near the top of their list of priorities. Plenty of people have it on their list somewhere, but rank it as less important than getting their Sunday newspaper on time or having an orderly commute to their job. The message to those people needs to be: "disruption will only get worse as the climate crisis intensifies. If you want XR to stop being annoying, direct your anger towards those in charge till they commit to worthwhile, binding, emissions-reduction targets."
My problem is that actions like this will serve to highlight the existence of the collective action problem. If the message is that we'll keep pissing you off until you do something then that message also reinforces the notion that most people aren't motivated.
This is an important point about collective action.

Individuals have been doing collective actions for climate change, of course - changing their lightbulbs, eating less meat, walking or taking public transport to work etc. The problem is that those individual actions are pissing in the wind without strong political action, which is lacking as no mainstream party anywhere in the world has done much. There is no party to vote for (especially in the UK with FPTP), and few products that can be bought while maintaining some semblance of a normal life, that adequately address the climate emergency.

I don't know how we get from knowing, scientifically, what has to be done to actually doing it. I do get the impression from history that changes that radical (dare I say revolutionary) tend to come from direct action carried out by a minority, often using extreme measures, presumably because everyone with the power to make changes from within the current system is too invested in the current system and the benefits they get from it to actually want change.

Which isn't to say that XR's particular current type of direct action is likely to be effective, but I do expect that whatever pathway we find to solving the climate emergency (should we solve it at all) is going to come by people taking actions considerably more inconvenient than holding up some newspapers for one morning. And catastrophic climate change would obviously be more inconvenient still.
Born at 356.32 ppm CO2 #ShowYourStripes

Millennie Al
Fuzzable
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by Millennie Al » Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:35 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:53 pm
I don't know how we get from knowing, scientifically, what has to be done to actually doing it.
I don't see that we know what has to be done. It seems to me to be like finding somone in the street with a knife stuck into them - it may be obvious what's wrong with them, but if you think that pulling the knife out will cure them, you're very wrong.
I do get the impression from history that changes that radical (dare I say revolutionary) tend to come from direct action carried out by a minority, often using extreme measures,
What we learn from history is that when extreme measures are desired, and a group of people gain the power to take extreme measures, it doesn;t take long before the power is abused in the interests of those hoding it.
presumably because everyone with the power to make changes from within the current system is too invested in the current system and the benefits they get from it to actually want change.
Not exactly. It's more of a logical necessity. If someone really wants something, and they have the power to get it, then they already have it. If you find that someone does not have something, it means either they don't have the means to get it or they don't have the desire.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3387
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:54 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:35 am
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:53 pm
I don't know how we get from knowing, scientifically, what has to be done to actually doing it.
I don't see that we know what has to be done. It seems to me to be like finding somone in the street with a knife stuck into them - it may be obvious what's wrong with them, but if you think that pulling the knife out will cure them, you're very wrong.
Not quite: at the moment we're still sticking more knives in them, which does present a pretty obvious starting point. And the knives definitely do have to come out at some point.

We have a pretty decent idea of how to get CO2 out of the atmosphere - restoring forests, wetlands, agricultural soils, etc. Maybe someone in the future will invent some whizzy tech to do it even better, but they haven't yet. The earth system will probably be slower to cool down than it was to heat up, with considerable lags of different lengths in different components of the system. It'll be weird and messy, but at least going in the right direction; at the moment things are weird and messy and getting rapidly worse, and we're still stabbing that poor bloke you found in the street.
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:35 am
I do get the impression from history that changes that radical (dare I say revolutionary) tend to come from direct action carried out by a minority, often using extreme measures,
What we learn from history is that when extreme measures are desired, and a group of people gain the power to take extreme measures, it doesn;t take long before the power is abused in the interests of those hoding it.
That too. History often seems like swapping one problem for another: instead of feudalism we have wage-slavery, instead of kings, capitalists. I think a lot of people would still argue that that was an improvement, though.

I'm not sure that extreme measures are desirable, but it's looking increasingly like they're going to be necessary if we accept that limiting climate change is desirable.
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:35 am
presumably because everyone with the power to make changes from within the current system is too invested in the current system and the benefits they get from it to actually want change.
Not exactly. It's more of a logical necessity. If someone really wants something, and they have the power to get it, then they already have it. If you find that someone does not have something, it means either they don't have the means to get it or they don't have the desire.
I don't see how what you said contradicts what I said. I'm saying that they don't have the desire, and I'm explaining why.

Obviously people with power have changed things in the past, so it's not a 'logical necessity' that people with power can't change things. And changing things can take a long time, so they could be 'actively working to get it' rather than 'already have it'. I'm not convinced many people with much power are actually working particularly hard to get it, though.
Born at 356.32 ppm CO2 #ShowYourStripes

User avatar
discovolante
After Pie
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by discovolante » Thu Sep 10, 2020 7:31 am

Moving back to XR for a minute, it might be worth noting that one of their key 'demands' (of which there are three) is to create a 'citizens assembly' to lead government decisions on climate change (so, what to do with the knife). Regardless of whether or not you think that's a good idea, they seem to have spectacularly failed in communicating this aspect to the general public, and I do wonder whether if they were better at communicating it, it might not actually be more successful than the 'stop making things that people like to use' message. Maybe not, but it doesn't seem totally implausible in the current climate (no pun intended).

TBH I think Priti Patel's response to them is a bit worrying, a touch authoritarian perhaps.
don't get any big ideas, they're not gonna happen

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1235
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Thu Sep 10, 2020 9:10 am

Yes but that's because Priti Patel is both stupid and a c.nt.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
Woodchopper
After Pie
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Sep 10, 2020 9:18 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:53 pm

Individuals have been doing collective actions for climate change, of course - changing their lightbulbs, eating less meat, walking or taking public transport to work etc. The problem is that those individual actions are pissing in the wind without strong political action, which is lacking as no mainstream party anywhere in the world has done much. There is no party to vote for (especially in the UK with FPTP), and few products that can be bought while maintaining some semblance of a normal life, that adequately address the climate emergency.
I agree.
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:53 pm
I don't know how we get from knowing, scientifically, what has to be done to actually doing it. I do get the impression from history that changes that radical (dare I say revolutionary) tend to come from direct action carried out by a minority, often using extreme measures, presumably because everyone with the power to make changes from within the current system is too invested in the current system and the benefits they get from it to actually want change.
Not really. In democratic societies social change has been achieved by getting a majority in parliament. The way to achieve that is to get at least a plurality of the electorate to support the cause. ETA That needs large mass organizations - eg parties or other with a large membership (eg rade Unions).

There is a role for direct action - eg suffragettes chaining themselves to railings. But that has to be part of an overall strategy. Direct action is useful as a means to raise awareness. But there has to be a wider organization else its nothing but a bunch of publicity stunts. Everything from gay liberation through to Scottish nationalism also involved either that the cause was adopted by a mainstream party (eg gay marriage), or that it was taken up by a new organization (eg the SNP). Brexit is actually the most successful contemporary political movement. It was successful because it was able to combine direct action with mass support. Farage didn't even need to get more than a handful of MPs in order to persuade Cameron to give them a referendum.
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:53 pm
Which isn't to say that XR's particular current type of direct action is likely to be effective, but I do expect that whatever pathway we find to solving the climate emergency (should we solve it at all) is going to come by people taking actions considerably more inconvenient than holding up some newspapers for one morning. And catastrophic climate change would obviously be more inconvenient still.
There is definitely a role for direct action. But as Disco pointed out, if it isn't linked to a larger organization then the problem is that its easily ignored. To put it bluntly, if no one is going to vote for XR then why should a politician take it seriously? Also, as mentioned, if the direct action ends up pissing a lot of people off it may not have the desired effect.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3387
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Sep 10, 2020 8:12 pm

It's weird that XR get singled out for being disruptive when this is going on:
IMG_20200910_210950.jpg
IMG_20200910_210950.jpg (93.24 KiB) Viewed 182 times
That's what 1°C looks like.

We're heading for 3°C.

lol
Born at 356.32 ppm CO2 #ShowYourStripes

User avatar
discovolante
After Pie
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by discovolante » Thu Sep 10, 2020 8:21 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 8:12 pm
It's weird that XR get singled out for being disruptive when this is going on:
IMG_20200910_210950.jpg
That's what 1°C looks like.

We're heading for 3°C.

lol
I oscillate between thinking that if XR manage to alienate even relatively thoughtful people, they're onto a loser and need to rethink, and huge frustration that even supposedly thoughtful people can't seem to look beyond their immediate reaction to media stunts. As well as the ongoing differentiation between the impact on lives that are visible to us (TV screens, social media etc) and those that aren't.

Scuse me while I go wallow in a pit of existential despair.
don't get any big ideas, they're not gonna happen

User avatar
discovolante
After Pie
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by discovolante » Fri Sep 11, 2020 8:29 am

I'm grateful for the discussion between you and Woodchopper on this thread, and your other threads on this topic BTW. Pre Covid I was thinking about how I could become more active in environmental issues. When lockdown happened I put all that on hold because well, pandemic, thousands of people dying etc. But I can't really let that be a reason to ignore it indefinitely. But I've been struggling to think what I could usefully do, even in a small way. Plodder suggested local activism in another thread, which is a good idea. I've been pretty bad at keeping up to date with local news so I want to try and change that. But apart from that I'm not sure. In terms of direct action e.g. protest, Covid related safety concerns aside I really can't afford to risk getting into trouble with the law so at the moment that rules out pretty much all in-person group activity. I'm not egotistical enough to think I can effect any substantial change myself, but at the same time sitting and doing nothing doesn't feel right.

There's also just basic personal action to reduce waste etc as well. I currently have a 10 year old car and my central heating runs on oil, and while my house isn't cold, it isn't the warmest either. I'm still wary of public transport and am at home most of the time. I'm trying to save money so although I am doing some shopping for stuff I'm not exactly splurging constantly. But i still see my big and recycling boxes fill up each week...

So yeah, hm.
don't get any big ideas, they're not gonna happen

OneOffDave
Stargoon
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:26 am

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by OneOffDave » Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:47 am

For some reason XR glued themselves to the front of DHSC yesterday. An odd choice unless they are saying we should have less health care to reduce population numbers. Would have been better to target BEIS a bit up the road

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1235
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:58 am

OneOffDave wrote:
Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:47 am
For some reason XR glued themselves to the front of DHSC yesterday. An odd choice unless they are saying we should have less health care to reduce population numbers. Would have been better to target BEIS a bit up the road
They also glued themselves to the DfT the other day, for HS2 reasons. Not sure why they chose there tbh.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3387
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Lol (Extinction Rebellion edition)

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:01 pm

Their diversity of targets does seem to be a problem. The flashy stunts do attract media coverage, but there's not much point in that if people don't get it. While people seem to be aware of, and concerned about, climate change in the abstract, people really seem to struggle to connect it to the realities of their daily lives.

I expect XR activists think that people will see a photo in the newspaper accompanying an article that will explain why they're protesting, and understand. Or, failing that, that people reading the article will use the internet - after all, everybody knows that climate change is the defining issue of the century, and that XR are doing more than most to emphasis its importance, so only a moron would dismiss their activities without doing any research, right?

Unfortunately, what actually happens is that people see a photo of young people making a mess and react by thinking "tw.ts", then move on. So they clearly do need a different strategy - perhaps picking a target that even the least-informed people will instinctively understand, and that only inconveniences people that nobody likes anyway.


The HS2 protests are because it's not clear that HS2 will actually deliver carbon savings, but it is clear that it's destroying woodlands. I'm not up on all the details, but it does seem to be destructive of a lot of the few remaining fragments of various habitats in England, and even though many conservation organisations, from local Wildlife Trusts to the RSPB, started off working with them - and are obviously naturally favourably predisposed towards increased government funding for public transport! - HS2 Ltd. seems to have eroded the goodwill of absolutely everybody from the conservation sector they've been working with.

There are protests in other locations. The problem with being up a tree in the countryside is that it's too easy for the press to ignore you, and contractors just cut down all the other trees and leave you up there. There were also some XR protestors up trees in Parliament Square, but the police withheld food and water for two days. So if they don't want to be ignored or dehydrated/starved, quicker actions in less predictable locations are the only options.

I don't see what's confusing about choosing the DfT - they are ultimately in charge of HS2.


I can't find anything about a recent XR protest at the DHSC - are there any reliable sources for that? Obviously climate change is enormously prejudicial to health so there's probably a sensible angle, but it's not on their website or anybody else's website either AFAICT. There was a scientist arrested for talking outside DHSC on the 3rd, but they don't seem to have been glued to anything.
Born at 356.32 ppm CO2 #ShowYourStripes

Post Reply