Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
fake soupWhat?! People think the chucking soup was fake? Like fake what? A hologram, fake soup, people in the pay of others, wtf?
fake soupWhat?! People think the chucking soup was fake? Like fake what? A hologram, fake soup, people in the pay of others, wtf?
Yeah, what I'm finding insanely frustrating is that, if you look to see who was first involved in taking up and pushing the "BIG OIL FUNDS JSO" idea, you find:I've noticed from irl and elsewhere on the internet the way people have reacted to it seems to have a lot to do with what filter bubble they're in. For example all my leftie tiktok obsessive mates are sure it's fake but aren't talking about it unless someone else brings it up. Whereas my mates who were vocal remain voters and have Twitter are being very vocally critical of it.
I am also incredibly frustrated with the whole "I disagree so it's a conspiracy" theme because not only is it conspiraloony but it also fundamentally misunderstands conspiracy theories, what the aims of sabotage is in radical movements and how to counteract it
The first time someone said it they said it with such conviction I just believed them and didn't ask what they meant. After that I started asking and they think they're actors paid by oil people.What?! People think the chucking soup was fake? Like fake what? A hologram, fake soup, people in the pay of others, wtf?
Yeah, what I'm finding insanely frustrating is that, if you look to see who was first involved in taking up and pushing the "BIG OIL FUNDS JSO" idea, you find:
View attachment 347594
So all the people taking up and amplifying this Fox News talking point seem to believe that Just Stop Oil is a pawn of the oil industry, but Fox News is just... neutrally putting the facts out there, or helpfully coming to the rescue of the climate movement by helping them identify this impostor, or something?
Pet peeve but the art stuff/Scotland yard isn't direct action.Direct action is a powerful tool and weapon when used well. When it’s applied like this it arguably devalues direct action as a whole.
Pet peeve but the art stuff/Scotland yard isn't direct action.
It is quite specifically indirect action, a propaganda stunt to push governments, institutions, the public, etc to do something.
Actions that involve civil disobedience are not necessarily direct action, and likewise direct action can can be entirely legal and not involve and civil disobedience.
it's not just people on tiktok is it though tbf, even on forums of intellectual vigour like these we have to play constant whack-a-mole with idiots eating whatever the latest stupid theory coursing through the internet isA little explainer on this stupidness here:
It seems like people on tiktok will literally believe anything.Just Stop Oil, tomato soup, and Aileen Getty: How a cli...
Just Stop Oil’s most recent protest has got the internet wondering if the climate change organisation is actually funded by Big Oil.screenshot-media.com
I mean, when it comes to "protesting against fossil fuel stuff", you have said on this very thread that:The reason conspiracy theories are appearing suggesting they are a front designed to portray actual protestors negatively is that they are actually portraying actual protestors negatively by chucking soup over artworks instead of, you know, protesting against fossil fuel stuff.
So I'll take your opinions on the value of "protesting against fossil fuel stuff" with a grain of salt there. But more importantly, I'm interested in why it is that people go from "they are chucking soup over artworks, a tactic I disagree with, so therefore they must be a front for Big Oil" rather than "they are chucking soup over artworks, a tactic I disagree with, so therefore they must be people who have views I disagree with on what the best ways to acheive our shared goals are?" This is the part that actually interests me, why is it that people find it easier to believe half-baked conspiracy theories than to accept that there are people who genuinely prefer different tactics and strategies?Targeting random fossil fuel infrastructure... is just a wankers game tbh.
I mean, when it comes to "protesting against fossil fuel stuff", you have said on this very thread that:
So I'll take your opinions on the value of "protesting against fossil fuel stuff" with a grain of salt there. But more importantly, I'm interested in why it is that people go from "they are chucking soup over artworks, a tactic I disagree with, so therefore they must be a front for Big Oil" rather than "they are chucking soup over artworks, a tactic I disagree with, so therefore they must be people who have views I disagree with on what the best ways to acheive our shared goals are?" This is the part that actually interests me, why is it that people find it easier to believe half-baked conspiracy theories than to accept that there are people who genuinely prefer different tactics and strategies?
The fact it's an oil painting wooshed high over your headThe reason conspiracy theories are appearing suggesting they are a front designed to portray actual protestors negatively is that they are actually portraying actual protestors negatively by chucking soup over artworks instead of, you know, protesting against fossil fuel stuff.
The fact it's an oil painting wooshed high over your head
Yes, I forgot you wrote your doctoral thesis on van gogh's use of seed oilI'm sure these people were sufficiently educated to know that Van Gogh used poppyseed and linseed oil in his paint.
They will have attacked the painting due to the occasional addition of paraffin wax to the linseed oil.
Yes, I forgot you wrote your doctoral thesis on van gogh's use of seed oil
Everyone's wise after the eventYeah, that was a bit of a mistake seeing how it was his early adoption of synthetic pigments that was far more relevant in terms of his art.
There is a baffling number of people on Twitter who should at least tip their hat to direct action who are sniping about this
Bonnie Greer, GRT Twitterati etc
There is a baffling number of people on Twitter who should at least tip their hat to direct action who are sniping about this
Bonnie Greer, GRT Twitterati etc
I mean, when it comes to "protesting against fossil fuel stuff", you have said on this very thread that:
So I'll take your opinions on the value of "protesting against fossil fuel stuff" with a grain of salt there.
But more importantly, I'm interested in why it is that people go from "they are chucking soup over artworks, a tactic I disagree with, so therefore they must be a front for Big Oil" rather than "they are chucking soup over artworks, a tactic I disagree with, so therefore they must be people who have views I disagree with on what the best ways to acheive our shared goals are?" This is the part that actually interests me, why is it that people find it easier to believe half-baked conspiracy theories than to accept that there are people who genuinely prefer different tactics and strategies?
Lots of people make tactical decisions that I think are indefensibly shit all the time. I'm not even particularly sold on the merits of this specific action, I think it's a very effective way of achieving one specific goal (media attention) but I'm not sure that pursuing that goal is the most useful thing to be doing. But that's not the point, the point I'm interested in is that there are people who seem to be incapable of imagining a sincere, meaningful disagreement, so anyone using tactics they think are shit must be part of a conspiracy. You seem to think that's a reasonable and defensible position, would you like to expand some more on it?Who knows? Maybe people either aren’t convinced by their goals or don’t understand them? Maybe their tactics are so shite that people can’t understand how people who share their views could reasonably decide to adopt them?