Just Stop Oil

[Pickman's model]

What?! People think the chucking soup was fake? Like fake what? A hologram, fake soup, people in the pay of others, wtf?

fake soup

 

[LDC]

Tomato soup can't melt fine art, boils at too low a temperature. #doyourresearch

 

[hitmouse]

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

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:

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?

 

[muscovyduck]

What?! People think the chucking soup was fake? Like fake what? A hologram, fake soup, people in the pay of others, wtf?

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.

 

[8ball]

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?

It's just about making noise to obscure the message.

 

[hitmouse]

A little explainer on this stupidness here:

Just Stop Oil, tomato soup, and Aileen Getty: How a clima...

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

It seems like people on tiktok will literally believe anything.

 

[platinumsage]

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.

 

[danny la rouge]

It seems like people on tiktok

 

[redsquirrel]

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.

 

[8ball]

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.

Pedantic but fair. Can also see story 's point.

 

[killer b]

A little explainer on this stupidness here:

Just Stop Oil, tomato soup, and Aileen Getty: How a clima...

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

It seems like people on tiktok will literally believe anything.

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 is

 

[redsquirrel]

TBH it was not really directed at story, it is just red rag to a bull when civil disobedience stunts like this get labelled direct action. One of those things that just does my head in.

 

[story]

Yeah, fair point.

I should have put direct action in quote marks.

It kind of proves my point: that this kind of ersatz nonsense undermines proper direct action.

 

[8ball]

TBH it was not really directed at story, it is just red rag to a bull when civil disobedience stunts like this get labelled direct action. One of those things that just does my head in.

One for dlr's rage thread?

 

[hitmouse]

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.

I mean, when it comes to "protesting against fossil fuel stuff", you have said on this very thread that:

Targeting random fossil fuel infrastructure... is just a wankers game tbh.

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?

 

[8ball]

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?

#201 is still my guess.

That and the filter bubble thing.

 

[Pickman's model]

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.

The fact it's an oil painting wooshed high over your head

 

[8ball]

The fact it's an oil painting wooshed high over your head

I'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.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'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

 

[8ball]

Yes, I forgot you wrote your doctoral thesis on van gogh's use of seed oil

Yeah, 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.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yeah, 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.

Everyone's wise after the event

 

[bellaozzydog]

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

 

[8ball]

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

Paging redsquirrel...

 

[Jeff Robinson]

 

[LDC]

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

Because it's not direct action. And what it is was could be argued to be not a good target for a variety of reasons. And that the strategy that this type of action comes from is fundamentally flawed.

So there's some pretty good reasons to think it was politically not a great thing to do, even if you support action on climate change, direct action, etc. wholeheartedly.

 

[8ball]

If I was them I'd be more concerned about the Loch Ness monster's muscling in on the action!

 

[platinumsage]

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.

Funnily enough I can have an opinion whether their tactic of targeting museums is likely to be found appropriate by the majority of people, and also an opinion on whether the targeting of Schlumberger et al will actually help them achieve their stated aim. Two very different things.

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?

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?

 

[8ball]

I'm still not sure why they haven't opened two lanes. They said they'll be up there for 24 hours so they can close it for a bit for that.

 

[platinumsage]

‘Mr Trowland said: "Our government has enacted suicidal laws to accelerate oil production - killing human life and destroying our environment. I can't challenge this madness in my desk job, designing bridges, so I'm taking direct action."’

Direct action against his day job?

 

[hitmouse]

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?

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?