Just Stop Oil

[FridgeMagnet]

Like I don't think anyone apart from real headbangers thinks five years custodial is an appropriate sentence for disrupting traffic. The point is to just get it through regardless of opinion to scare anyone else off doing anything else for the same reasons. It's a statement that you are not allowed to do climate change protest in any meaningful way (eta: or even, as is in Hallam's case, just encourage other people to - funny how he got the highest sentence while not being involved in the actual actions beyond that).

 

[Rob Ray]

I said, they should target oil companies and others that people can see are directly connected to climate change.

The state thought of that. Unlike the M25 stunt there's a guaranteed sentence with oil companies, as they're all injuncted up the wazoo. No legal aid, no jury, straight to jail with an unlimited fine. The bet with this case was to win over the jury with direct reference to the climate emergency, which the judge seems to have stymied.

 

[Karl Masks]

The state thought of that. Unlike the M25 stunt there's a guaranteed sentence with oil companies, as they're all injuncted up the wazoo. No legal aid, no jury, straight to jail with an unlimited fine. The bet with this case was to win over the jury with direct reference to the climate emergency, which the judge seems to have stymied.

The state will always oppose them. I don't believe that changing their tactics would alter that.

If you want juries to be sympathetic then you need to undertake actions that will be more likely seen that way than not.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Juries have already been proven to be sympathetic, which is why it's now banned to be able to talk to them, and you can be locked up for reminding them of their legal powers.

 

[redsquirrel]

Why not address something I've said instead of being a prick?

You've proved yourself a prick many times over the years
You claim to be a member of the Socialist Party, yet consistently articulate politics that is in no way consistent with that group. I mean the group that you a supposedly a member of is in the tradition of Lenin, it believes in the violent overthrow of the state - and yet here you are whibbling on about how terrible it is that people might have been delayed on their way to work.

 

[Karl Masks]

You've proved yourself a prick many times over the years
You claim to be a member of the Socialist Party, yet consistently articulate politics that is in no way consistent with that group. I mean the group that you a supposedly a member of is in the tradition of Lenin, it believes in the violent overthrow of the state - and yet here you are whibbling on about how terrible it is that people might have been delayed on their way to work.

"You claim to be a member of the socialist party"

Who the fuck are you to be any judge? You haven't even demonstrated you understand anything that I've said. You clearly don't understand the politics of the SP if you seriously think it advocates violent overthrow of the state. This is the dumbest shit. I'd ask you to cite evidence but we both know that's a waste of time.

"whibbling on about people being delayed", you self entitled little prick.

 

[redsquirrel]

It's the Leninist Party you fool. What do you think the politics of that means dumbo

 

[Karl Masks]

It's the Leninist Party you fool. What do you think the politics of that means dumbo

Let me get this straight. You, a twat, are actually criticising me for NOT wanting to violently overthrow the government? Never mind what some clown has filled your head with regarding the actual beliefs of the SP, which you could have double checked online before saying something as fucking stupid as this.

All of which is a distraction from actually discussing JSO, which I presume is what you came here to do. So to that point, I'm going to assume you agree with blocking roads as an effective tactic. If so can you say how many months or years it will be before that tactic achieves any kind of positive result? If that is the only tactic you can countenance then what do you envisage for the future of climate activism if these tactics dont' bear fruit.

 

[Rob Ray]

Never mind what some clown has filled your head with regarding the actual beliefs of the SP, which you could have double checked online before saying something as fucking stupid as this.

I mean, the party's public position directly links its thinking to Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, all of whom were in favour of violent revolution, and expressly places itself as a revolutionary movement in favour of not just disruptive strike action but the general strike. It's careful not to directly get into territory where the government can accuse them of incitement, but the ideas are all there.

https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/documents-and-manifestos/what-we-stand-for/

 

[redsquirrel]

Let me get this straight. You, a twat, are actually criticising me for NOT wanting to violently overthrow the government? Never mind what some clown has filled your head with regarding the actual beliefs of the SP, which you could have double checked online before saying something as fucking stupid as this.

No I'm criticising you for not understanding the party you have joined. A party that is quite explicitly in the tradition of Lenin and Trotsky.
What do you think the politics of the SP are? Complaining about how disruptive JSO are and advocating a vote against anyone not a Tory?

 

[Karl Masks]

No I'm criticising you for not understanding the party you have joined. A party that is quite explicitly in the tradition of Lenin and Trotsky.
What do you think the politics of the SP are? Complaining about how disruptive JSO are and advocating a vote against anyone not a Tory?

Why not stick to the actual topic. You could answer my questions about JSO tactics. I'm not interested in this stupid tangent since you really haven't a fucking clue. If not i'm happy to put you on ignore, your choice.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

This applies to every strike, riot, and large sanctioned protest. If we're only ever to use strategies that don't inconvenience anyone we might as well just lie down and wait for the end. Somewhere out of the way, of course.

You didn’t comment on this post Karl Masks ?

 

[Karl Masks]

This applies to every strike, riot, and large sanctioned protest. If we're only ever to use strategies that don't inconvenience anyone we might as well just lie down and wait for the end. Somewhere out of the way, of course.

I didn't say don't use strategies that don't inconvenience people. I said use strategies that those you inconvenience can see directly connect to your goal.

 

[redsquirrel]

Well, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, juries did connect the actions of JSO their goal - hence finding them not guilty.

What your politics actually comes down to is voting against the Tories, whenever anyone points out to you groups organising, taking strike action, engaging in civil disobedience, direct action whatever, you come out with the pathetic liberal canard - oh I support X, just not in this case.

i don't support the critical workers themselves striking. I think others should strike in their place

At the start of the summer holidays? They will cop a ton of flak for that!

There will always be some people that object to civil disobedience and direct action, a few on principle, more because when all is said and done they are opposed to the politics. Having wider public support is of course an advantage to any campaign, but there is a multitude of examples that show that public support is not necessary - and is frequently used by liberals like you as a way of hindering and blocking any organising and agitating.
What's ludicrous is that someone who is a member of a party that proposes a vanguard has to have this explained to them. But then you never had had a clue.

 

[Pickman's model]

I didn't say don't use strategies that don't inconvenience people. I said use strategies that those you inconvenience can see directly connect to your goal.

This is the first winner of my new occasional award, stupidest post of the week

 

[Karl Masks]

Well, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, juries did connect the actions of JSO their goal - hence finding them not guilty.

They were found guilty of conspiring to cause a public nuisance because it's illegal to block roads. Do you agree people who block roads should endure consequences? Do you think blocking roads should be illegal?

What your politics actually comes down to is voting against the Tories, whenever anyone points out to you groups organising, taking strike action, engaging in civil disobedience, direct action whatever, you come out with the pathetic liberal canard - oh I support X, just not in this case.

I didn't say anything about voting or not voting since i haven't mentioned it at all in this discussion. I presume that, if you care enough about JSO's cause, you voted? If not then I don't think you have any credibility. Perhaps you could also explain how you have inferred from me saying that I support them taking different action, such as I suggested (something you haven't actually objected to either), that I am against direct action or civil disobedience. I even clarified my position right above in two sentences and you still ignore it. I don't think you're a serious interlocutor. I think you like what JSO because you, and some others, like the romance of it. It all sounds cool.

There will always be some people that object to civil disobedience and direct action, a few on principle, more because when all is said and done they are opposed to the politics. Having wider public support is of course an advantage to any campaign, but there is a multitude of examples that show that public support is not necessary - and is frequently used by liberals like you as a way of hindering and blocking any organising and agitating.

Do you even know what JSO's goal is? If so, [please explain how blocking roads achieves that. If it doesn't achieve it, and knowing that it is controversial, please explain why you're defending it. I assume you also agree that these protesters, in blocking roads, want to be arrested and punished. Or do you think anyone should be able to block raods for any reason?

What's ludicrous is that someone who is a member of a party that proposes a vanguard has to have this explained to them. But then you never had had a clue.

Your logic is all over the place. You are constructing a strawman based on the assumption that I am against protest. I have never said that. You haven't even quoted me saying that either. All you are doing is saying "protest is cool, man". It's just romanticising revolutionary politics with no understanding what's involved. The fact you thought the SP was pro violent revolution is proof you know fuck all - and then you criticised me for not wanting violent revolution. You're a fucking clown "this machine kills progressives". Why not just say "MAGA" and be done with you, you posturing twat.

 

[redsquirrel]

Total gibberish, as usual when you have one of your temper tantrums. We all know who you are, your past actions and the shite that you've come out with for over a decade.

JSO aren't even a revolutionary group (unlike the SP), they are reformist but in favour of cvil disobedience. And if you'd have bothered to read the thread you would know that I am not without (comradely) criticism of them. But they are committed to taking action for a cause that is necessary, and willing to risk jail sentences for it, that I do respect. Indeed as other comrades have said on the thread considering the harm climate change will do, non-violent civil disobedience is a mild approach to take.

In contrast to JSO you've consistently opposed groups taking strike action, civil disobedience, direct action etc as shown by the links. You've never actually advocated anything beyond voting against the Tories.

 

[mojo pixy]

Your logic is all over the place.

Someone's is.

Do you even know what JSO's goal is? If so, [please explain how blocking roads achieves that.

How did the suffragettes' disruptions contribute to their achieving votes for women?

Something to reflect on, perhaps (if you do that, rather than just pounding out knee-jerk reactions).

 

[Pickman's model]

Someone's is.



How did the suffragettes' disruptions contribute to their achieving votes for women?

Something to reflect on, perhaps (if you do that, rather than just pounding out knee-jerk reactions).

All his reactions are those of a jerk

 

[redsquirrel]

Or the civil rights movement NVDA in States.
Or the illegal and often disruptive (luddites) actions of workers in the building of the labour movement.

 

[Pickman's model]

They were found guilty of conspiring to cause a public nuisance because it's illegal to block roads. Do you agree people who block roads should endure consequences? Do you think blocking roads should be illegal?

I didn't say anything about voting or not voting since i haven't mentioned it at all in this discussion. I presume that, if you care enough about JSO's cause, you voted? If not then I don't think you have any credibility. Perhaps you could also explain how you have inferred from me saying that I support them taking different action, such as I suggested (something you haven't actually objected to either), that I am against direct action or civil disobedience. I even clarified my position right above in two sentences and you still ignore it. I don't think you're a serious interlocutor. I think you like what JSO because you, and some others, like the romance of it. It all sounds cool.



Do you even know what JSO's goal is? If so, [please explain how blocking roads achieves that. If it doesn't achieve it, and knowing that it is controversial, please explain why you're defending it. I assume you also agree that these protesters, in blocking roads, want to be arrested and punished. Or do you think anyone should be able to block raods for any reason?




Your logic is all over the place. You are constructing a strawman based on the assumption that I am against protest. I have never said that. You haven't even quoted me saying that either. All you are doing is saying "protest is cool, man". It's just romanticising revolutionary politics with no understanding what's involved. The fact you thought the SP was pro violent revolution is proof you know fuck all - and then you criticised me for not wanting violent revolution. You're a fucking clown "this machine kills progressives". Why not just say "MAGA" and be done with you, you posturing twat.

Every time I think you can't plumb greater depths of stupidity you prove me wrong

 

[mojo pixy]

All his reactions are those of a jerk

I wondered if someone night suggest that 'knee-jerk reactions' aren't all he pounds out.

Obviously I won't because I'm not a meanie

 

[Karl Masks]

Someone's is.



How did the suffragettes' disruptions contribute to their achieving votes for women?

The suffragettes comitted arson and had a 'by any means' tactic. Given that the climate crisis is, by magnitude, a greater crisis than women's suffrage, do you think JSO should adopt similar tactics?
Were their tactics directly causal in achieving suffrage?

I think that such comparisons aren't as helpful as they might appear; getting the vote is a much more tangible proposition than ending global use of fossil fuels. Each proposition, re direct action, along with the tactics proposed, should be judged individually.

Something to reflect on, perhaps (if you do that, rather than just pounding out knee-jerk reactions).

What knee jerk reaction are you referring to? Why not address that instead of this patronising homily?

 

[mojo pixy]

The suffragettes comitted arson and had a 'by any means' tactic. Given that the climate crisis is, by magnitude, a greater crisis than women's suffrage, do you think JSO should adopt similar tactics?

Yes, probably. I suspect in the end someone will, too. I can't say for sure I'll disapprove, but it very much depends on what they burn.

Were their tactics directly causal in achieving suffrage?

That's what I was asking you, actually:

How did the suffragettes' disruptions contribute to their achieving votes for women?

Do you think for example that they had no effect whatsoever?

I think that such comparisons aren't as helpful as they might appear

No, you've said that already but you're wrong.

getting the vote is a much more tangible proposition than ending global use of fossil fuels.

Not really, it's just a more limited demand. Given the existential threat of the current situation though, I think huge demands are appropriate.

In any case, the Earth's climate will soon be making its own demands, and no amount of whining or legal threats will have any effect. You can't imprison a drought. You can't put an injunction on deadly heatwaves, or hurricanes or flash floods.

And in 100 years, we'll see clearly how shortsighted and desperate all the disapproval over road blocking was. (Well ok we won't, because we'll be dead in 100 years, but looking back from there, there will be a right and a wrong side of history as there is for the long-dead suffragettes whose mark was well and truly made.)

 

[redsquirrel]

Of course JSOs initial goal - that the UK commit to no new fossil fuel projects - has occurred.

I certainly don't think it was all down to them, but to say that their and XRs actions had no effect whatsoever, or was even negative, seems hard to support. This is a (shadow) government that has repeatedly shown itself willing to back track on commitments if pushed by capital and the right - the dropping of the Green Deal being one example. Yet on this point it was willing to commit - in part because there is a bedrock of support for this move.

 

[Karl Masks]

Yes, probably. I suspect in the end someone will, too. I can't say for sure I'll disapprove, but it very much depends on what they burn.

If you think that it depends then you are making the same argument I am: that tactics matter and that not every form of action or tactic is positive.

No, you've said that already but you're wrong.

Good argument, chief

Not really, it's just a more limited demand. Given the existential threat of the current situation though, I think huge demands are appropriate.

Yes really. The UK government can give women the vote. the UK government cannot end the global use of fossil fuels. It can only participate and so there is no guarantee that, even with the best government ever, it can do this. Whereas it can give women the vote, entirely and fully.

In any case, the Earth's climate will soon be making its own demands, and no amount of whining or legal threats will have any effect. You can't imprison a drought. You can't put an injunction on deadly heatwaves, or hurricanes or flash floods.

What argument are you making here. Do you think I don't believe in climate change?

And in 100 years, we'll see clearly how shortsighted and desperate all the disapproval over road blocking was.

We aren't discussing things from some future vantage point, we're discussing the efficacy of their tactics in the here and now. This speculation is pointless

 

[klang]

Given that the climate crisis is, by magnitude, a greater crisis than women's suffrage

There is an argument to be made that climate change and women's rights (also see oppression, authoritarian control, capitalism, etc) are interlinked and therefor deserve / require the same or a very similar political analysis and response.

 

[klang]

the UK government cannot end the global use of fossil fuels.

They can trigger a global alternative.

 

[mojo pixy]

No, you've said that already but you're wrong.

Good argument, chief

It's not so much an argument as a statement of fact

 

[mojo pixy]

What argument are you making here. Do you think I don't believe in climate change?

We aren't discussing things from some future vantage point, we're discussing the efficacy of their tactics in the here and now. This speculation is pointless

We aren't living in the last day of the world. History does not end in 2024. Not admitting what the future needs and will look like, not recognising what now will look like from there, is in large part why we are where we are. I'm surprised someone who thinks of themselves as progressive in outlook, would deny that.

Anyway some of us work Sundays so catch ya later