• Saint@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    The idea of pensioners storming anything is hilarious. I’m glad to see members of that generation speaking up.

    • Methylman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Beats them speaking up about how they could afford property so why can’t the younger generations

  • Fantomas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    No. They’re there to support they own sense of moral virtue and righteousness. They’ve done far more harm for climate activism than good. Now climate activism is seen as some sort of annoying lefty pastime instead of the absolute urgent matter that it is.

    • abessman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Everyone knows protests are only effective if they don’t inconvenience anyone. Ideally, climate activism should be conducted from the inside of one’s closet. That’s how real change happens!

      • Methylman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But why are they inconveniencing people who wanted to watch a tennis match and not idk… oil execs?

        They get as much sympathy from me as I gave the truckers who protested outside my apartment building in Ottawa trying to convince me covid isnt real as if I had any decision making power

        Tl,dr: pick your battles

        • Happyjustbecause@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wimbledon is a sporting event which has a posh reputation, many seats being traditionally reserved for the upper and ruling classes. For example, on the centre court they have a area called the ‘Royal Box’. I would argue that there are probably quite a few oil execs in the audience.

          • hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.fmhy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah you never know what their research looked like. Maybe they checked and got a whole bench of oil execs in there.

            Sounds like they knew what they were doing.

          • Methylman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            They weren’t at centre court…

            Arguably the most impactful figure for climate change is Greta and I can’t think of one instance where she has angered working people to gain traction (maybe I’m wrong) and I believe she has done much more for the cause than getting on the news for causing a disturbance…

            • Killakomodo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              What??? I hear Americans hating her for “trying to get attention and stopping people from doing their jobs” all the time

                • Killakomodo@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  you like to bring up things that are beside the point, it does not matter if they have a problem with her for a real reason or a made up one, just that a lot of people discredit her because of her trying to bring attention to climate change. I was just responding to the “I can’t think of one instance where she has angered working people to gain traction”

        • abessman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago
          1. Visibility. Targeting widely broadcasted events increases exposure of the cause.
          2. Disruption: Ever heard of bread and circuses? Disrupting the circus rouses the general public, and a roused public is preferable to complacent one even if they are roused against the protestors themselves.
          3. Pressure: Eventually, 2. forces the ruling class to take action. Again, even if the action is to silence or persecute the protestors it still serves to highlight the issue.
          4. Symbolism: Shit is not fine. Most people want to pretend it is, and this kind of event is part of the illusion. Pulling aside the curtain is the right thing to do.
          • Legolution@vlemmy.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thank you for your beautiful and eloquent explanation of the rationale behind Direct Action. I will be cribbing it in future.

          • Methylman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            2 and 3 sound about where we are and even you admit it turns people against the protests - I’m against oil execs but it genuinely feels like these muppets arent on my side

          • Methylman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah I agree - so why do they keep picking on us who have no power and not bringing their message to places that could have more impact with less fallout from those who agree with their cause but not the way they are going about it

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why do you think a protest at Wimbledon, where Britain’s rich and powerful elite frequent, would not be a place that could have an impact?

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I see that, but I still disagree. Protesting at Wimbledon isn’t “picking on us.” I couldn’t afford to go to a match even if I lived in the UK. One day alone is £75. In a country where people can’t afford food due to inflation. Protesting at Wimbledon is picking on them.

        • LostCause@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          I just want to say, I used to work at a fossil fuel company and one of the owner‘s family’s favourite sports to talk about was tennis, other two was golf and sailing.

          Not sure if they also watched this one, but I can see a potential connection at least.

          • Methylman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I get that but it’s starting to feel like these people would protest a kids birthday party if it meant the news would cover them .

            I like seeing them on the streets doing their slow walks and getting in the way of corporations daily business but I can’t help but feel some of their actions are starting to alienate would-be supporters

            • LostCause@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I get that frustration as well that you express, since it disrupted something you enjoy and that isn‘t pleasant. However, as the inaction by those in power mounts, so do the frustrations of otherwise powerless protesters and that is something happening regardless of any negative counter reactions they may also provoke.

              Already people have set themselves on fire in front of government buildings in the US for example and even that isn‘t yet the height of escalations that people can go to trying to get themselves to be heard. You can probably see why, as the climate reports we do hear get increasingly dark and various people and ecosystems on the planet experience negative effects.

              • Methylman@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah - I guess it also feels like everyone knows something needs to be done by now but clearly if everyone actually did feel that way (I would hope at least) something would be done

        • chillhelm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Inconveniencing oil execs achieves absolutely nothing. You will never change someone’s opinion whose livelyhood depends on holding that opinion. The climate crisis will not be confronted by oil execs and any meaningful measures will not have their support. Protesting them is a waste of time.

          The only way to achieve anything is to increase the immediate right-now cost of doing nothing over the cost of doing something. The cost in annoyance, money, time and for the people that can be persuaded, ie. the general public.

          • Methylman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok - so one could say a ‘goal’ per se is decreasing attendance at events like this with the hope that it causes a change ? I can get behind that and believe that’s a rational reason to protest.

            If all that’s true then my only real complaint is Just Stop Oil isn’t getting THAT message across effectively

            • sudo@lemmy.fmhy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’re really missing the point. Nobody would say “the ‘goal’ per se is decreasing attendance to events like this”.

              They did exactly what they set out to do. Make a public spectacle that people write news stories on and then the public talks about it. Normalizing discourses of these issues and drawing more attention and support to addressing them.

              People who are already of the corporate lapdog mindset that any inconvenience to them about social, political, and environmental issues should just go away won’t have their minds changed. But nobody wants to change their minds, they understand these people won’t change.

              But young people especially will be drawn to support causes and invoke change when they are constantly reminded that their future is being destroyed around them, instead of just buying into distractions and ignoring it all.

              • Methylman@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Make a public spectacle that people write news stories on and then the public talks about it.

                See this is where I disagree… if all they want is publicity then start a website or buy ads on tv.

                If they want to make a difference then take a page from the indigenous groups blocking logging roads and railroad tracks across Canada when necessary

        • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because tennis is an middle and upper class sport that thes people are likely to be attending, same as the glhorse races the other week. Doing it at London stadium when West Ham are at home would be a bit different.

    • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, because governments were all over it before these protests started it right.

    • RockyBockySocky@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Staying silent and doing nothing is gonna help how?

      This is generating conversation on the topic, which is good.

      Protest disrupts, that’s the point.

      • Ni@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is the problem, people have been quietly talking about this issue and trying to convince people for decades. Barely anything has happened. Protest is supposed to be inconvenient. Not sure whether this type to protest works, but the quiet, passive way certainly doesn’t.

        • RockyBockySocky@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah all the experts have been sounding every alarm for decades, the peaceful and “proper” way have been proven to not work, no one cares to listen.

          • e-ratic@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Also worth pointing out the demand isn’t to dissolve the oil and gas industry over night - but to suspend all new licensing and expansion of the industry which in this case… is 1) something the UK should be doing anyway to meet their climate commitments and 2) not that radical or unreasonable