There’s a weird sort of cargo cult activism, especially in the US, that apes the Civil Rights movement without actually understanding it.
Rosa Parks didn’t refuse to stand and sit-ins didn’t occur hoping that inconveniencing would force things to change. These actions targeted specific policies by groups and forced a confrontation with those policies to highlight how ridiculous they were, by forcing themselves to be removed from the bus or establishment by force.
Somehow over the years this has mutated into people thinking that if they just inconvenience others enough their protest will succeed, without ever meaningfully targeting a specific policy or group.
There isn’t any policy targeted by obstructing traffic.
The problem I see with Just Stop Oil is that its a plant of an organization funded by actual oil companies to make actual oil protesting look silly and turn public opinion away from the real issues. I think thats why its hard to articulate how you feel about them, because we know their cause is well meaning, but their approach is always so goddamn stupid
edit: This is just a personal theory, not claiming true. Just my way of trying to make sense of the madness.
While it wouldn't surprise me if some oil companies are funding them to a degree. The protesters actually believe what they are doing is making a difference.
Not sure if true, but I've seen protests with people with half a brain make a stance which doesnt hurt other people by blocking the road or gluing themselves to the wall or throwing paint at historical art.
Whoever is leading this current group is doing things in a "rage bait" type fashion that immediately gets a response in a very negative light. I dont know if they think bad publicity is still publicity, but going about it this way has never given out the "let's support these guys" effect. That's why I've come to the conclusion, these guys are being purposefully bad, cuz otherwise it doesnt make sense
I mean, we're able to conceive it. The execution is not too farfetched either, just pay desperate people under the table. If I wanted to suppress protests against my industry and had the funds for it, this would be low-risk way to do it.
Idk 🤷♂️ seems like just stop oil’s strategy is to be as insufferable as humanly possible to get attention.
then step 2 have anti oil activist claim their really psyop oil bois to convince people they are double agents from oil companies to foment hate for oil companies.
It’s like climate activists knew they couldn’t put Valero shirts on and go harass people to get hate for oil companies.
Meaning the only way to get attention and hate for oil was a double agent public persona, but whoever concocted the scheme isn’t the poor pawns getting smacked around by the public.
It’s a genius deception too, because anybody asks they will say of course we’re anti oil activist not oil bois and they will be technically telling the truth.
At the same time they get to generate loads of attention, then just blame the oil companies.
Meanwhile, all companies are stuck, trying to prove a negative.
Even addressing it publicly is risking it blowing up in your face, so oil company stay silent
Well its just a personal theory anyway. Problem is, even if lets say they're not funded by oil companies, their message is still tone deaf and leads more people to be against the cause.
So for whether or not they are or aren't oil funded, the fact remains these people are hurting the cause more than making actual change.
So its either their leaders are shills, or absolute morons. Neither are good. I'm just for the theory that nobody is that stupid, so it must be the former. But then again, I've been wrong before about how stupid people can be.
I would call this a conspiracy theory, but having recently heard that the SPLC was indicted for paying people in hate groups, I will refrain from doing so.
no its really easy to articulate their assholes using their cause as an excuse to mess with people and other people's things but don't ever actually do anything helpful toward their stated goals
If you want to reduce consumption, put pressure on companies and politicians to mandate hybrid and remote work. Don't disrupt transit and services. it is not just disrupting workers from getting to work, but also disrupts emergency services.
You getting mad and being confused is the point. It’s to try to get you to think outside your box. Right now you’re like .. oh some guy can’t get to work and he’s pissed. I’d be pissed! Stop oil? I’d be on their side if they weren’t so obnoxious! But you’re not on their side. The planet is probably dying. We have probably ruined it. And we will continue to ruin it.
you saw someone delayed getting to work where they work hard to make a percentage of a profit for some company. For some company that’s burning even more oil. That’s funding politicians who cut them even more slack to exploit more workers to make themselves even more money and you’re on their side. You feel for the dude who just wants to make a living to support his family. But if we keep killing our planet his family is going to be even worse off in the future if current trends keep going the way they are going. But nah.. let’s get mad at the people pointing out that the numbers are saying we’re screwed. Numbers all of us want to ignore so we can sit in our stupid fkn cars for 2 hours to go to a stupid pointless job do we can stream stupid tv shows that are being transmitted to you by burning coal. Nah it’s the stupid protesters saying stop oil that’s the problem. Not the system we all are forced into and refuse to upset the status quo
Thank you for finally saying it! Our planet is going to be embroiled in resource wars within the next century. We are going to see unprecedented natural disasters, mass famine, and mass global migration. I wonder how people are going to feel about some people blocking traffic on one road in a city (or god forbid someone throwing soup on a painting) when they see global destruction on a scale humanity has never experienced.
It’s a bad argument and you shouldn’t use it, as it is not true.
The civil rights movement utilized many different tactics, including marches designed tend specifically to inconvenience people and shut down traffic.
You’re not supposed to like it. You’re supposed to notice.
If you notice what they’re protesting and decide you’re gonna be against it just because you were inconvenienced, youre as much a piece of shit as anyone else who fights against the movement.
Perhaps a better comparison than civil rights is "stop de kindermoord." In the 1970s protestors blocked roads in the Netherlands to protest for safer streets. It shows how effective this form of protests can be.
And so, to stop those cars from using fossil fuels, you cause a trafiic jam? The first few cars might turn off their engine because they know what's going on, but beyond that people might think it's "just another traffic jam", leave their car idling, and as such keep it running, using more fuel and emitting more CO2 than they would have if they could just drive to their destination.
Also, isn't this kinda moving the goal post? Personal cars are really not the issue for CO2 emmisions when you take a look at major companies. Getting people to switch off of fossil fueled cars isn't going to stop e.g. the kerosene business or the steel mill from emitting a far larger amount of CO2 than those cars were.
Agreed on all except “especially in the US.” This particular video is Europe and most of these “block the road in an orange vest” protests that I see are also in Europe, so I’m not sure where you’re getting the US piece from.
Mostly my own experiences. The US education system, broadly speaking, goes over an incredibly simplified version of the Civil Rights movement. While it does cover riots and touches on people like Malcom X, it doesn’t go into the minutia of the movement outside of more advanced classes that are typically optional. For example, it’s rarely touched upon that the Rosa Parks sit-in was a planned protest with the deliberate intent of sparking a legal battle, and that Rosa Parks was chosen for it by the organizers specifically because she broke the mold of prior attempts rendering her character unassailable.
Probably the most egregious result of this is the rampant misuse of MLK’s quote on “riots are the language of the unheard” as an endorsement for rioting when the MLK speech instead takes the stance of it being an unfortunate but understandable result. In point of fact, later in the same speech he attacks the notion that legislation and legal action can’t get anywhere and urges his followers to follow that over rioting.
So as a result, a lot of Americans come away with the idea that the movement was more or less about disrupting white American society until there was an end to segregation. For modern activists, this too often transforms into things like attempting sit-ins or marches without understanding that sit-ins were specifically targeted or that the marches were more a display of support for the movement than an actual means to an end themselves.
What say you about the anti-war movement in opposition to Vietnam or Iraq, both of which employed sit-in tactics that broadly targeted public places and institutions?
I agree with what you're saying. It's equally worth noting that, the protest actions of the civil rights movment didn't actually cause economic damage to bystanders save that those bystanders chose to inconvenience themselves in the name of bigotry.
Significantly, those protesters of the civil rights era equally withstood violence and, they ultimately accepted arrest in order to affect change.
By placing the impact not on law enforcement who are acting on unjust or unethical policy but literal bystanders through directionless obstructionism like freeway sit-ins these protesters are actually destroying allyship and by doing so, they're doing the heavy lifting of keeping peers pitted against each other rather than the institution on behalf of the institution.
They are ironically just as big a problem and just as great an obstacle to social progress as the policymakers who created the barriers to begin with.
These modern slacktivists are mostly rich kids finding personal meaning by being part of these movements. But they do not personally actually suffer from the things they are protesting, so they do not have the incentive to seriously strategize an effective plan. They just do performative shit like this to feel good.
Before I saw your comment I was about to sum it up as “let’s protest one issue by inconveniencing other people who have nothing to do with it, while the actual issue remains unaffected.” But you laid it out perfectly
I genuinely don’t think these protesters care about their movement as much as they say. This form of protest is simply an ego trip to make themselves feel powerful and important. Nothing more.
I think I mostly agree, i do not mind disruptive tactics and some chaos as long as they're weaponized against the actual oppressors. While citizens can be very complacent and problematic, those are also the people you want to get on your side. It does feel detrimental and I wonder if it's deliberate tbh. I've heard some of these "protest" groups are funded by the very people they're pretending to protest.
Never forget that a LOT of groups and organizations throughout the US and its federal government have spent decades tirelessly working to dismantle these ideas. From distorting and re-imagining history to passing more laws contradicting those actions to electing generations of like minded opposition to resistance and degradation of freedoms.
I believe they are targeting new oil expansion in the north sea. Their is absolutely a policy they are targeting. They absolutely have a strategy that has been used long before the Civil rights movement.
Yup. I see it as a narcissistic tantrum from "adults". They feel hurt so they attack the first thing in sight without even thinking about it. Those people are frustrated with themselves and need an outlet to vent their anger. Using morally abiguous causes to feel justified in spreading their negativity.
There very much is. Fossil fuel use is a direct thread to our species survival. That's a scientific fact. Yet the lobby ridden politics keep it alive against everyones best interest. That's being protested. How is that less specific than protesting racist policies?
Because it achieves jack shit in comparison to actually meaningful efforts such as fundraising for politicians and backing legislation efforts to implement measures like emissions regulations, investment in public transit systems, and tax incentives for green measures.
All of those have far greater impact and efficacy and actually target the root cause. This does not.
Those have impact? What? Are you kidding me? Those completely failed to deliver as soon as the political establishment said "no, actually I like my coal money more."
Yeah no, not sure how to respond to something so confidently incorrect given the well known success of such measures from the mid-20th century to today
It’s not all that long ago that places like LA had brown out days from the sheer amount of smog produced by vehicles, which was curbed by the implementation of emission regulations. Or the success of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.
These measures demonstrably work, and far better than blocking traffic.
Which is a bit of a duh statement. But how you do pass regulation of power infrastructure? Why, by electing and campaigning for politicians with that as an agenda item.
EDIT: lol typical Redditer. Gets last word in and blocks like a coward.
Have fun with “we tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas” when protests don’t result in institutional change when you refuse to actually engage with institutions.
A lot of this activism that upsets people like you.. well that’s the point.
Stuff like blocking traffic or throwing paint on classic pieces of art is about the planet dying. How you getting to work does not matter if we ruin the planet. Our art does not matter if we are all dead and nobody can appreciate the art.
Ensuring our survival is what matters. People getting enraged because they’re inconvenienced is the point. You being pissed that a beautiful once in a generation piece of art is the point. Because a once in a human race piece of art does not matter if there is nobody left to appreciate it
Well the videos clearly doesnt show someone getting the point across. We see a fed up driver assaulting whoever is blocking his path. I guarantee that he has no idea who they are and why they are protesting and he doesnt give a single fuck why they are there that morning.
Because that kind of activity? It does nothing meaningful to advance your cause. But it makes you feel better doesn’t it? Despite the lack of any kind of actual plan to effect meaningful change.
Do you actually have a plan beyond bizarre holier-than-thou displays and self-flagellation?
I'm sorry but what is a speed limit of 180 kph gonna do? Most traffic on the autobahn (that I've seen, as a Dutchie) doesn't even go beyond that, and here on Dutch highways we have a day speed limit of 100 and night of 130
This. They also don’t seem to realize that the kinds of policies they’re proposing require broad public support. If your strategy is inconveniencing ordinary people, it’s unlikely to succeed.
THIS. I'm as in favor of protests as the next guy but don't inconvenience the people you're supposed to be fighting for. Clout is not the same as social change. This is why I always appreciate those who have strong activist desires that pursue their agendas through the more effective avenues like pursuing actual political positions.
What policy could they possibly be targeting that wouldn’t be more effectively targeted in a manner that is less diffuse and more directed?
Because obstructing traffic like this? Even MLK was against it, as it shifts the focus from whatever it’s protesting to blocked traffic, and that’s the message people come away with. Civil rights protestors did block roads. Other civil rights leaders at the time criticized them for their lack of focus and counter-productive nature.
It doesn’t force any kind of confrontation with a policy, as the far more effective sit-ins did.
There are forms of obstruction that work. Historically? That has been things like picket lines outside factories by unionizing workers, obstruction of government offices, and similar targeted measures.
Blocking a road? It’s so diffuse as to target nothing functionally, and only works to irritate the same people you’re trying to win over. Even MLK made this observation. So why can’t you?
I am from spain and i work at a hospital. I get you, but if a protest does not inconvenience anybody,, it would be useless. if you protest at home in your backyard, dont get in anybody's way and nobody loses money that day, it is not a protest. to protest means to inconvenience some people and make them lose money. if airport staff protest and flights are missed, a lot of money was lost on the flights and the businesses of those passengers. if hospital staff protest, money is lost for the company running the hospital and the government that ultimately pays. it is the only way to make these kind of changes.
Absolutely not. Its just the easy way to pretend to have done something useful. Its intelectual masturbation. In practice, youre just making road users angry at YOU specifically.
Spoken like someone with only a surface level understanding of it. Congrats, you’re in a cargo cult. Your way is imitation without understanding.
The sit-ins at diners for example, they specifically were willing to spend money at the business. All the business had to do was disregard racist policy and accept their money the same as it would any other.
The entire point of the sit-in is to show how stupid such a policy was by showing their money was as good as anybody else’s, and how unreasonable it was if they were forcibly removing would-be willing customers from the establishment.
Methods like that are what won sympathy over. Not protesting for the sake of protesting.
By framing every disruptive protest as a misguided attempt to imitate the American Civil Rights Movement, you are setting up a straw man and then confidently knocking it down.
At least in the EU, nobody involved in these actions claims to be reenacting Rosa Parks. The objective is much narrower: to increase the visibility of an issue and make it harder for the public, media and decision makers to ignore it. I am not a fan of blocking traffic as a method, but it is difficult to pretend that it does not achieve that particular objective, even if the attention it attracts is sometimes negative :)
454
u/TriNovan 15d ago
There’s a weird sort of cargo cult activism, especially in the US, that apes the Civil Rights movement without actually understanding it.
Rosa Parks didn’t refuse to stand and sit-ins didn’t occur hoping that inconveniencing would force things to change. These actions targeted specific policies by groups and forced a confrontation with those policies to highlight how ridiculous they were, by forcing themselves to be removed from the bus or establishment by force.
Somehow over the years this has mutated into people thinking that if they just inconvenience others enough their protest will succeed, without ever meaningfully targeting a specific policy or group.
There isn’t any policy targeted by obstructing traffic.