Just Stop Oil

[Karl Masks]

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.

I don't disagree their is a connection under capitalism. However can you explain how it follows that a similar response is required and what that response should be? IIRC the suffragettes deployed arson. Should JSO do the same for example?

They can trigger a global alternative.

They can try and inspire, but we are a tiny player. I certainly think we should do our part, which is why I think JSO's tactics matter

 

[Karl Masks]

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

No, it's a naked assertion. You would have to back it up, and you haven't thus far

 

[klang]

I don't disagree their is a connection under capitalism. However can you explain how it follows that a similar response is required and what that response should be? IIRC the suffragettes deployed arson. Should JSO do the same for example?

Whatever tactics JSO deploy is frankly up to them.
If i don't agree with their actions i can moan about it till the cows come home, but unless I'm involved in direct action that will attract people to my way of doing things it will always be just this - a meaningless moan.

As to arson - there are many ways to trigger a meaningful response to climate change. Arson can be one of the actions, under the right circumstances.

 

[klang]

They can try and inspire, but we are a tiny player.

Hard action and decisive policy shaping goes well beyond 'inspiring'.
Finding political and viable ways to counteract our dependency on oil is just one of them

 

[Karl Masks]

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.

But noone has denied action, even direct action, is required.

 

[Rob Ray]

do you think JSO should adopt similar tactics?

This is a difficult one to answer in the affirmative without falling afoul of incitement laws, but it's safe to say that even the viable threat of a serious campaign of property destruction is often enough to panic the State into taking action, certainly in terms of repression but also often in reversing policies. Sticking with nonviolence the roads protest and animal rights movements were categorically successful in achieving wide swathes of their aims, even though they were eventually beaten and the State swore blind they'd achieved nothing. More recently the Don't Pay campaign was a major influence on the decision to cap energy prices, simply because it was feared the thing would metastasise.

 

[mojo pixy]

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?

I don't think you're that stupid but in any case let me answer, for clarity.

At the moment we're seeing environmental protesters being jailed for protests against use of fossil fuels, which among other things caused loss, delay and quite likely even harm to a relatively small number of people. The judge was explicit in his remarks that these losses, delays and harms are the reason for his extraordinary sentencing.

If we as a species continue burning fossil fuels as we are, and the climate continues to grow warmer and therefore more chaotic, the losses, delays and harms to be suffered by humanity will (not might or may, definitely will) grow harsher and more frequent. Flash floods, mudslides, storms and hurricanes (200kph winds? 200mph winds? Very likely, in 100-200 years), tidal surges, droughts and crop failures leading to catastrophic famines, disease pandemics and huge waves of desperate migration here, there and everywhere (but very likely mainly here, ie Europe, ie a relatively affluent corner of the earth with fairly resilient infrastructure). Millions will die, billions perhaps. It really doesn't bear thinking about.

Now, our JSO protesters are screaming STOP THIS NOW. They're among a tiny minority of people prepared to actually put themselves in a hazardous position to essentially warn us, noisily and publicly, that our days of safety and security really are numbered, and there is a solution: stop burning oil.

Instead of paying attention and making arguments and investments now to possibly prevent or at least mitigate the worst of the coming nightmare (and it is coming), our betters are having them silenced and jailed. Not just for what they're doing, but explicitly to discourage other people from doing the same.

We (the UK) could be setting a different example and pushing much, much harder for the growth of a fossil-fuel-free economy. Instead we're doing the opposite, opening more gas wells and coal mines while clamping down on and jailing the screamers. We're a relatively liberal place, so we're also giving the nod to far more authoritarian states to clamp down too (can you imagine what China would do to climate protesters blocking a major highway there?)

Etc.

So my argument is, why is anyone in support of such clampdowns, given where we can already see climate change taking us all?

And, what do we think all our governments will be able to do when droughts, crop failures, extreme storms and floods etc really start fucking with all our infrastructure from food and fuel supply to energy grids to hospitals to water quality - who will we jail for that?

Can you really not see the absurdity, not of the harshness the sentence here, but of punishing the protesters at all?

 

[Karl Masks]

I don't think you're that stupid but in any case let me answer, for clarity.

At the moment we're seeing environmental protesters being jailed for protests against use of fossil fuels, which among other things caused loss, delay and quite likely even harm to a relatively small number of people. The judge was explicit in his remarks that these losses, delays and harms are the reason for his extraordinary sentencing.

If we as a species continue burning fossil fuels as we are, and the climate continues to grow warmer and therefore more chaotic, the losses, delays and harms to be suffered by humanity will (not might or may, definitely will) grow harsher and more frequent. Flash floods, mudslides, storms and hurricanes (200kph winds? 200mph winds? Very likely, in 100-200 years), tidal surges, droughts and crop failures leading to catastrophic famines, disease pandemics and huge waves of desperate migration here, there and everywhere (but very likely mainly here, ie Europe, ie a relatively affluent corner of the earth with fairly resilient infrastructure). Millions will die, billions perhaps. It really doesn't bear thinking about.

Now, our JSO protesters are screaming STOP THIS NOW. They're among a tiny minority of people prepared to actually put themselves in a hazardous position to essentially warn us, noisily and publicly, that our days of safety and security really are numbered, and there is a solution: stop burning oil.

Instead of paying attention and making arguments and investments now to possibly prevent or at least mitigate the worst of the coming nightmare (and it is coming), our betters are having them silenced and jailed. Not just for what they're doing, but explicitly to discourage other people from doing the same.

We (the UK) could be setting a different example and pushing much, much harder for the growth of a fossil-fuel-free economy. Instead we're doing the opposite, opening more gas wells and coal mines while clamping down on and jailing the screamers. We're a relatively liberal place, so we're also giving the nod to far more authoritarian states to clamp down too (can you imagine what China would do to climate protesters blocking a major highway there?)

Etc.

So my argument is, why is anyone in support of such clampdowns, given where we can already see climate change taking us all?

And, what do we think all our governments will be able to do when droughts, crop failures, extreme storms and floods etc really start fucking with all our infrastructure from food and fuel supply to energy grids to hospitals to water quality - who will we jail for that?

Can you really not see the absurdity, not of the harshness the sentence here, but of punishing the protesters at all?

So your argument is that people blocking roads should be acquited because they cite the changing climate as their reason for blocking?

I've also said, multiple times, that I don't agree with the punishment.

It isn't absurd to prosecute people for blocking roads because it is rightly illegal to do so. Your issue is that those doing so are citing climate change as the reason. There is a huge gap in connecting blocking roads and addressing climate change so the tactic has to be effective because blocking roads is dangerous and inconvenient, and dismissing it as 'whibbling' is just arrogant. I don't think you can just cite climate change - or any cause - as a reason to do anything you like. Aside from the consequences of that action, people can see right through this and JSO needs to be winning people over. If they don't, the government can just ignore them knowing that those people will side with them and not JSO.

 

[mojo pixy]

dismissing it as 'whibbling' is just arrogant.

I didn't use the word 'whibbling', ever, so I don't know who you think you're replying to but it's not me.

Try reading my last post again and answering what I'm actually saying in it

Or you know, don't, and just have a little think about where this is all going...

 

[Karl Masks]

I didn't use the word 'whibbling', ever, so I don't know who you think you're replying to but it's not me.

i didn't say you did. Not everything in my response has to relate specifically to your comments.

Try reading my last post again and answering what I'm actually saying in it

Or you know, don't, and just have a little think about where this is all going...

I have addressed your post. You are suggesting people who block roads should be acquitted.

EDIT: u asked "So my argument is, why is anyone in support of such clampdowns, given where we can already see climate change taking us all?"

Because blocking roads is dangerous

If people can block roads and just cite any popular cause, however legit that cause might be, then there would be chaos. Do you disagree with the law against obstruction?

They are doing these actions precisely because they are illegal. It would be illogical in the extreme to assume or hope any government could just let them do it.

Let's say for example, that a JSO protest caused some deaths. An ambulance or fire engine can't get through. Perhaps a carer can't get to their client and that client maybe dies. Whatever, doesn't matter. Do you really think the general public would look on that sympathetically and think their cause was justification? What reason would the government, that opposes JSO (if it didn't their protests wouldn't be necessary) have to concede to their demands if they have public opinion on their side, and not with JSO?

Can't you think of any other tactic whatseover? Is blocking roads really the ONLY way to raise consciousness in the public? If not, well....good luck with that.

Arguing that the consequences of climate change are more severe than the consequences of blocking a road is not a credible justification. With that thinking what's to stop me shooting your family dead? More people will die if we don't address climate change so....

 

[mojo pixy]

i didn't say you did. Not everything in my response has to relate specifically to your comments.


I have addressed your post. You are suggesting people who block roads should be acquitted.

EDIT: u asked "So my argument is, why is anyone in support of such clampdowns, given where we can already see climate change taking us all?"

Because blocking roads is dangerous

If people can block roads and just cite any popular cause, however legit that cause might be, then there would be chaos. Do you disagree with the law against obstruction?

They are doing these actions precisely because they are illegal. It would be illogical in the extreme to assume or hope any government could just let them do it.

Let's say for example, that a JSO protest caused some deaths. An ambulance or fire engine can't get through. Perhaps a carer can't get to their client and that client maybe dies. Whatever, doesn't matter. Do you really think the general public would look on that sympathetically and think their cause was justification? What reason would the government, that opposes JSO (if it didn't their protests wouldn't be necessary) have to concede to their demands if they have public opinion on their side, and not with JSO?

Can't you think of any other tactic whatseover? Is blocking roads really the ONLY way to raise consciousness in the public? If not, well....good luck with that.

Arguing that the consequences of climate change are more severe than the consequences of blocking a road is not a credible justification. With that thinking what's to stop me shooting your family dead? More people will die if we don't address climate change so....

Such a long post so soon after mine which was even longer, tells me you're not really thinking about what I've said there. Forgive me but I don't think you're engaging in good faith or with an open mind.

I've seen this before from you, so before you get to the point of wishing me dead (shooting my family? yeah thanks for that) I'm stepping away. My points are made, I'm happy to leave it there for now.

 

[Pickman's model]

i didn't say you did. Not everything in my response has to relate specifically to your comments.


I have addressed your post. You are suggesting people who block roads should be acquitted.

EDIT: u asked "So my argument is, why is anyone in support of such clampdowns, given where we can already see climate change taking us all?"

Because blocking roads is dangerous

If people can block roads and just cite any popular cause, however legit that cause might be, then there would be chaos. Do you disagree with the law against obstruction?

They are doing these actions precisely because they are illegal. It would be illogical in the extreme to assume or hope any government could just let them do it.

Let's say for example, that a JSO protest caused some deaths. An ambulance or fire engine can't get through. Perhaps a carer can't get to their client and that client maybe dies. Whatever, doesn't matter. Do you really think the general public would look on that sympathetically and think their cause was justification? What reason would the government, that opposes JSO (if it didn't their protests wouldn't be necessary) have to concede to their demands if they have public opinion on their side, and not with JSO?

Can't you think of any other tactic whatseover? Is blocking roads really the ONLY way to raise consciousness in the public? If not, well....good luck with that.

Arguing that the consequences of climate change are more severe than the consequences of blocking a road is not a credible justification. With that thinking what's to stop me shooting your family dead? More people will die if we don't address climate change so....

I'm sure there'd be the traditional finale to any shooting you carry out so I hope you'd skip straight to that and no harm anyone else

 

[krtek a houby]

Just stop Wells

 

[Karl Masks]

Such a long post so soon after mine which was even longer, tells me you're not really thinking about what I've said there. Forgive me but I don't think you're engaging in good faith or with an open mind.

You're going to whine about having to reading a post that is hardly any length at all? Pretty pathetic. But not as pathetic as deliberately misrepresenting what was said to you after asking for someone to directly answer your question. That's not only in the most egregious bad faith, it's genuinely nasty. What a coward you are.

I've seen this before from you, so before you get to the point of wishing me dead (shooting my family? yeah thanks for that) I'm stepping away. My points are made, I'm happy to leave it there for now.

You and I both know that I wasn't wishing anyone dead, and having to explain it is demeaning to everyone reading this including the both of us. It's beneath you to behave like this when I know you understood what was said was a hypothetical. Your entire argument was that it was ok to put people's lives at risk because of the seriousness of climate change. That is the whole point of using a hypothetical like that. So to twist that into a death threat is as ugly as you are intellectually dishonest, and the fact you have a little circus of well wishers eager to do the same says more about this forum's unwillingness to engage honestly than it does about my intentions.

But you crack on. You knew full well I'd respond to this, so now you can complain about another lengthy reply. Whatever, you're a staggeringly dishonest piece of shit

 

[danny la rouge]

Whatever, you're a staggeringly dishonest piece of shit

Whatever else mojo pixy might be, they are not that. Maybe we can discuss things without the personal attacks.

 

[Karl Masks]

Whatever else mojo pixy might be, they are not that. Maybe we can discuss things without the personal attacks.

I think it entirely justified to call someone who deliberately misrepresents, in the most offensive way poissible, my comments in deliberate bad faith a piece of shit. You didn't seem to find a voice then, only when I call that behaviour out. Why?

 

[danny la rouge]

I think it entirely justified to call someone who deliberately misrepresents, in the most offensive way poissible, my comments in deliberate bad faith a piece of shit. You didn't seem to find a voice then, only when I call that behaviour out. Why?

I didn’t see the behaviour to which you refer. I haven’t read the entire thread as it became very tedious in the last several pages, mind you.

 

[Karl Masks]

I didn’t see the behaviour to which you refer. I haven’t read the entire thread as it became very tedious in the last several pages, mind you.

You read my comment such that you sought to respond to it, but didn't bother to read the comment it was responding to? Come on now.

 

[mojo pixy]

You're going to whine about having to reading a post that is hardly any length at all? Pretty pathetic. But not as pathetic as deliberately misrepresenting what was said to you after asking for someone to directly answer your question. That's not only in the most egregious bad faith, it's genuinely nasty. What a coward you are.

You and I both know that I wasn't wishing anyone dead, and having to explain it is demeaning to everyone reading this including the both of us. It's beneath you to behave like this when I know you understood what was said was a hypothetical. Your entire argument was that it was ok to put people's lives at risk because of the seriousness of climate change. That is the whole point of using a hypothetical like that. So to twist that into a death threat is as ugly as you are intellectually dishonest, and the fact you have a little circus of well wishers eager to do the same says more about this forum's unwillingness to engage honestly than it does about my intentions.

But you crack on. You knew full well I'd respond to this, so now you can complain about another lengthy reply. Whatever, you're a staggeringly dishonest piece of shit

I'm not really sure how to respond to this so I'll express that doubt in acknowledgement of the above screed, and say no more.

 

[Jennaonthebeach]

i didn't say you did. Not everything in my response has to relate specifically to your comments.


I have addressed your post. You are suggesting people who block roads should be acquitted.

EDIT: u asked "So my argument is, why is anyone in support of such clampdowns, given where we can already see climate change taking us all?"

Because blocking roads is dangerous

If people can block roads and just cite any popular cause, however legit that cause might be, then there would be chaos. Do you disagree with the law against obstruction?

They are doing these actions precisely because they are illegal. It would be illogical in the extreme to assume or hope any government could just let them do it.

Let's say for example, that a JSO protest caused some deaths. An ambulance or fire engine can't get through. Perhaps a carer can't get to their client and that client maybe dies. Whatever, doesn't matter. Do you really think the general public would look on that sympathetically and think their cause was justification? What reason would the government, that opposes JSO (if it didn't their protests wouldn't be necessary) have to concede to their demands if they have public opinion on their side, and not with JSO?

Can't you think of any other tactic whatseover? Is blocking roads really the ONLY way to raise consciousness in the public? If not, well....good luck with that.

Arguing that the consequences of climate change are more severe than the consequences of blocking a road is not a credible justification. With that thinking what's to stop me shooting your family dead? More people will die if we don't address climate change so....

JSO do a lot more than just block roads. Often its the police who end up blocking the road, not protesters.

There are deaths on the road every day - arguably, stopping the traffic makes it a lot safer for all of us. And arguing using a hypothetical situation which has ever happened and will never happen is weird. It's what TERFs do to try to strip me of my rights.

That last line is just fucking bullshit - I can't even put it into words. It could be used as an argument against any kind of protest.

 

[danny la rouge]

You read my comment such that you sought to respond to it, but didn't bother to read the comment it was responding to? Come on now.

I did read the comment it was responding to, but did not see the behaviour of which you complain therein.

 

[Karl Masks]

JSO do a lot more than just block roads. Often its the police who end up blocking the road, not protesters.

the police will ofc block the roads in trying to clear any obstruction. The same as when emergency services arrive to deal with an RTA. Doesn't really seem a solid argument for justifying JSO's actions. Whatever the cause behind aon obstruction on the road the police/emergency services will have to get on to the road, stopping traffic, to clear it.

I'm sure JSO do a lot of things, but that's not really relevant nor does it justify this particular tactic.

There are deaths on the road every day - arguably, stopping the traffic makes it a lot safer for all of us. And arguing using a hypothetical situation which has ever happened and will never happen is weird. It's what TERFs do to try to strip me of my rights.

That last line is just fucking bullshit - I can't even put it into words. It could be used as an argument against any kind of protest.

Yes, that's my point.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

So your argument is that people blocking roads should be acquited because they cite the changing climate as their reason for blocking?
It isn't absurd to prosecute people for blocking roads because it is rightly illegal to do so. Your issue is that those doing so are citing climate change as the reason. There is a huge gap in connecting blocking roads and

“Two activists from Palestine Action were unanimously acquitted of criminal damage by a jury in Leicester Crown Court after one hour and 40 minutes of deliberation. For six days from 19th May 2021, four people occupied the roof of UAV Tactical Systems, an Elbit drone factory in Leicester. The action was taken urgently in response to the ongoing bombardment of Gaza at the time.”

They broke the law too, just like your piss poor blocking roads is illegal shite.

Should they have been sent down?

There’s absolutely no differences whatsoever between their actions & the actions of JSO.

 

[Pickman's model]

the police will ofc block the roads in trying to clear any obstruction. The same as when emergency services arrive to deal with an RTA. Doesn't really seem a solid argument for justifying JSO's actions. Whatever the cause behind aon obstruction on the road the police/emergency services will have to get on to the road, stopping traffic, to clear it.

I'm sure JSO do a lot of things, but that's not really relevant nor does it justify this particular tactic.


Yes, that's my point.

if there are any socialist party members on the boards they might like to assist the nefandous masks to depart their party forthwith, to end his bringing their organisation into disrepute

 

[Pickman's model]

“Two activists from Palestine Action were unanimously acquitted of criminal damage by a jury in Leicester Crown Court after one hour and 40 minutes of deliberation. For six days from 19th May 2021, four people occupied the roof of UAV Tactical Systems, an Elbit drone factory in Leicester. The action was taken urgently in response to the ongoing bombardment of Gaza at the time.”

They broke the law too, just like your piss poor blocking roads is illegal shite.

Should they have been sent down?

There’s absolutely no differences whatsoever between their actions & the actions of JSO.

he's the most law abiding revolutionary one could ever meet

 

[Mr.Bishie]

he's the most law abiding revolutionary one could ever meet

He’s a fucking flute & make no mistake!

 

[mojo pixy]

Can't you think of any other tactic whatseover? Is blocking roads really the ONLY way to raise consciousness in the public?

For my part (since this was a reply to me), it's not exactly a secret that I write and record songs about this kind of stuff. Soon (I have other, very important priorities atm) I plan to get back to performing them live in public, might even do some JSO and XR benefits with like-minded freaks (Totnes is just down the road from me). I intend this to grow (back) into more involvement with promoting counter-cultural, pro-environmental and social justice messages through audio and visual arts (whilst also railing against conspiracism of course)

May well not be blocking any roads, but it's OK because you don't like that. Still, those now saying "why not protest a different way" probably won't be interested in a different form of protest either, when they encounter it. That'd be normal

 

[Pickman's model]

He’s a fucking flute & make no mistake!

more a piccolo than a flute

 

[Pickman's model]

For my part (since this was a reply to me), it's not exactly a secret that I write and record songs about this kind of stuff. Soon (I have other, very important priorities atm) I plan to get back to performing them live in public, might even do some JSO and XR benefits with like-minded freaks (Totnes is just down the road from me). I intend this to grow (back) into more involvement with promoting counter-cultural, pro-environmental and social justice messages through audio and visual arts (whilst also railing against conspiracism of course)

May well not be blocking any roads, but it's OK because you don't like that. Still, those now saying "why not protest a different way" probably won't be interested in a different form of protest either, when they encounter it. That'd be normal

i wonder what he'd have had to say about the revolutionary defeatism that lenin espoused, all those soldiers blocking roads and that

can't help but picture the miserable masks as the pompous officer in this clip from dr zhivago

 

[mojo pixy]

Get back in your ranks!

Lots of people seem to love shouting that or some equivalent thereof, even though it means they have to get back in theirs too. I can only surmise they prefer their narcissism of small differences, as it were, over the threat to individual ego that solidarity with those considered inferior might present.

There's a lot of it about