10 ms·

This stuff is just so ridiculous that I have a hard time believing that stopping climate change is the real goal here. Things start to make more sense when you

• TremendousJudge 4y ago
  That's an interesting claim. Do you have a source where I can read more on this?
  • stronglikedan 4y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Climate+Emergency+Fund%2C+is+founded+by+oil+heiress+Aileen+Getty&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS975US975&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Climate+Emergency+Fund%2...
    • yunohn 4y ago
      So the reporting claims that she is an oil heiress who hasn’t worked in and appears to not like the oil industry. Makes sense that she’s funding them?
• barbazoo 4y ago
  Even if that's true, who cares? Shouldn't we judge an organization by its actions and not by who founded it?
  • sosborn 4y ago
    Honest question - do you think actions such as will draw more people to act on behalf of the planet? Personally I think acts like this have the opposite effect. "Those environmentalists are loons" is probably a common response. If you want to discredit a movement, giving attention to most extreme people is a good way to do it.
    • PakG1 4y ago
      I think parent was simply refuting ad hominen attacks in favour of more reliable types of logic, not saying what these protestors was doing was great.
  • lwouis 4y ago
    I think it's relevant here because these type of actions are controversial. Some say they serve the cause, some say they hurt the cause. If you believe that they hurt the cause, then you may find an explanation to those actions by digging into who's funding it.
  • jagaerglad 4y ago
    Judging actions by humans are not just events in space and time that we can add and subtract, evaluating them we have to look at the intent of the person doing it and therefore I believe it is valid discussing who the owner organization i.e. the "doer" of its actions is, it helps us evaluate the intent and see if we think they're good or bad
  • TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
    Local Orthodox church founding a gay club. That would raise lot of questions why.
  • tedunangst 4y ago
    Waiting for someone to glue themselves to the wall at the Getty Museum.
• jonathankoren 4y ago
  I fail to see how someone's accident of birth impinges their actions. This is a textbook ad hominem.
  • lwouis 4y ago
    Most people model themselves from their parents and the environment surrounding their youth. Most people are a product of social reproduction. Someone born in a circle is likely to identify with it and remain there. Yes, there are exceptions. What you call "accident of birth". Statistically, they are uncommon.
    • jonathankoren 4y ago
      So the Marquis de Lafayette isn't democratic patriot in two countries because he was born into the aristocracy? Statistics part literally doesn't matter. You judge the person by their actions.
    • rowanG077 4y ago
      Judging an individual by statistics of their group is pure discrimination.
  • mbStavola 4y ago
    Making climate change protestors and, by extension, the concept of climate change seem crazy is directly beneficial to someone standing to inherit an oil fortune. Whether or not that's actually what is happening here is a different story.
    • Reason077 4y ago
      Aileen Getty inherited a fortune that was made from oil. But given that she is a climate change philanthropist, I strongly doubt she has any active investments in the oil industry, and would not benefit from "making climate change seem crazy".
      • 3a2d29 4y ago
• houstonn 4y ago
  "This was funded by a group started by three rich Americans who became concerned about climate change after their houses in Malibu were threatened by wildfires in 2018. I'm not making this up. Two are heirs (a Getty and a Kennedy) and the third has made a career of advising celebrity philanthropists." https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1580966385932414977 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1580966385932414977
  • busyant 4y ago
    whoever is funding this, i would say their approach is ineffective at best and almost certainly counterproductive to their cause.
    • 1ris 4y ago
      That's what people said about PETA and whatever outrageous stuff they did. Time has disproven these people. I don't see how this is any different.
      • chadash 4y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you implying that the world has come to accept PETA's cause. Because while some issues are dramatically different than 20-30 years ago (e.g. marijuana legalization, gay marriage), I don't think the bar has shifted very much on animal welfare.
        • 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
          I think the implication is that PETA legitimately believes in their cause and methods.
          • pvaldes 4y ago
            And they fail again and again. Peta (and similar groups), are responsible of a lot of acts that can only described as environmental terrorism. And they did it for the money, not for the cause.
• gw99 4y ago
  Actually the guy who set up Just Stop Oil was interviewed a while back and said it was never about climate but being against the system. Managed to loop a bunch of lunatics into doing his bidding initially. As for Aileen Getty, I'm on the fence. I think she has good intentions but threw money at these morons. As for the morons, while I agree the message is good, the approach does nothing but damage the cause. They recently smashed all the pumps at my local petrol station. All that you end up with is pissed off people who associate the cause with negative people. This is a universally downward spiral.
  • rnd0 4y ago
    >Actually the guy who set up Just Stop Oil Google isn't showing me who that is; the only results I'm getting talk about the Getty heiress. Can you please tell us what that guy's name is and ideally a link to the story you're referring to?
    • gw99 4y ago
      Look up Roger Hallam. Tied to XR as well. There’s plenty of people distancing themselves from him now including XR.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  • zasdffaa 4y ago
    • gw99 4y ago
      Yes you’re not going to get anywhere from inside the system but the system is propped up by a faction of people who have vested interests in making money out of short term thinking. The only solution is to target those people directly and make it too risky to do business which is environmentally reckless.
    • junofan 4y ago
• JPKab 4y ago
  You're not wrong. Apparently activists of this variety tend to be highly narcissistic, with movements that engage in highly ineffective, yet high publicity activities like this being deeply attractive to these types. https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/infantilization-of-the-apocalypse https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/infantilization-...
  • 1ris 4y ago
    I have yet so see any argument why this should be ineffective or even highly so. Or why this should be any less effective than anything else that has been tried. With regards to your article: I think the authors answers his own questions: These are serious scientists. They told everybody in the whole world that we are all going to die (I'm paraphrasing, but you get it) in the most adult and sophisticated way possible: Highly prestigious peer reviewed journals, conferences and so on for several decades. Nobody listed. THAT was highly ineffective. Now it seems like time for a change in strategy. And given how very well it worked for the yellow vests and their infantile demands it looks like a good strategy.
    • ratboy666 4y ago
      No, the serious scientists did not tell everybody in the world. I would challenge that assertion. As to "time for a change in strategy". Sure, why not. Turn off the lights and go home. Remember the quote from the attempted Sunflowers incident: "Is it worth more than food? Worth more than justice?" ... "are you more concerned about the protection of a painting? Or the protection of our planet and people? The cost of living crisis is part of the oil crisis. Fuel is unaffordable to millions of cold hungry families. They can't even afford to heat a tin of soup". I will let you think on this. "No new oil" is the supposed solution to unaffordable fuel. And cold. Sure, no new oil. I guess it is an oil painting. The good news? Maybe they are beginning to learn to not make statements.
• vaylian 4y ago
  From the article: > In videos from the Dutch museum posted online on Thursday, one of the men says: > "How do you feel when you see something beautiful and priceless being apparently destroyed before your very eyes?" > "That is that same feeling when you see the planet being destroyed," he adds. Many people still don't acknowledge that climate change leads to /destruction/ of important ecosystems and human settlements. And that this destruction can and must be stopped. And for some reason this is a very difficult message to get across.
  • mecha_ghidorah 4y ago
    Look maybe it's just my bubble but I'm not sure that is the case. I take environmental concerns into heavy consideration while voting but beyond that what actions I can take personally are highly limited (I already don't own a car, which is going to pretty massively produce my footprint compared to the average western adult). The thing is short of performing an act of what would essentially be terrorism (assaulting and injuring an oil company executive or a politician who screws up my nation's commitments to carbon neutrality or blowing up a mine or something) I don't think there is anything approaching a direct way for me to be involved in actually fixing the problem. People acknowledge the problem, they just also feel powerless to fix it because in a lot of ways they are, and it's awful, and that powerlessness just makes this sort of "awareness seeking" activism rankle me even more. I live in Sydney and I while back some activists glued themselves the road on the harbour bridge, massively fucking up traffic for hours (ironically this protest probably hurt the environment by causing a traffic jam). Nobody became "more aware" of climate change as a result, but they did have their day disrupted and have to spend more time stuck in cars and buses, they did have to stress about getting to work late, and in some cases probably stay at work late to make up the time. Those people are facing jail time, and as much as I normally do respect that protests have to be disruptive to be meaningful I agree with the penalty in this case. The only people they disrupted were normal people just trying to make it through the goddamn day. I think this whole thing with the art is similar. Absolutely be disruptive, but be targeted: glue yourself to the car of an Exxon Mobile exec, glue yourself to an access road leading to a refinery. Don't degrade public spaces like major roads or art galleries unnecessarily - the people making decisions won't care or be impacted and the rest of us will suffer just that little bit more.
• elil17 4y ago
  This has always seemed like a weird conspiracy theory to me. (Not saying that conspiracy theories can't ever be true - just that this one seems to contradict the evidence). It's unclear that Getty even has a financial interest in the oil industry anymore. Getty is one of several major donors to the CEF. Others include Adam McKay, who is also on the board of directors. Why would he support the group if they were secretly pro-oil? In turn, CEF is one of many donors to Just Stop Oil, who in turn did the Van Gogh protest. I don't understand how people draw the conclusion that the Just Stop Oil protests are some sort of anti-climate conspiracy because a board member/donor to a group that gave a grant to JSO inherited oil money (but probably does not have significant financial ties to the oil industry anymore). Even if she wanted to bolster support for oil companies, why would she use this tactic? While a lot of people don't agree with the protests, I don't see anyone saying that they now support more oilfield leases as some sort of counterreaction. Plus, Getty's other donations are to far less controversial organizations that are definitely trying to solve climate change. For example, the Climate Reality Project trains people to lobby for climate-friendly regulations. It's clear that that does not align with the interests of oil. There's a much simpler theory: Just Stop Oil is a bunch of normal, fallible, non-conspiratorial people using a distasteful and likely ineffective tactic to advocate for a sensible policy (stopping new oil drilling) being funded by wealthy, fallible, non-conspiratorial people who probably think the protests will have an impact on policy and are probably wrong.
  • BitwiseFool 4y ago
    >"There's a much simpler theory: Just Stop Oil is a bunch of normal, fallible, non-conspiratorial people using a distasteful and likely ineffective tactic to advocate for a sensible policy..." My view is that there are people in our society whose personalities make them so passionate about righteous causes they wind up becoming delusional extremists. When enough of them get together and have a source of support, you can end up with this kind of thing. I have no doubt they truly believe they are helping to avert the apocalypse by doing this.
  • dmix 4y ago
    It's like everything, it's a complicated problem that internet warriors like to over-simplify and reduce to a single boogieman (ie, rich people). You see this in every major social issue, for example in housing 'affordability' everyone tries to blame foreign Chinese buyers, even when (depending on the area) they might only be 10% of all house buyers. Part of the problem, yes, but rarely even close to the bulk of it. Most importantly it distracts away from all the other more natural causes of the problem that are harder to confront (like well-intentioned run-of-the-mill climate activists making dumb decisions all on their own).
• teawrecks 4y ago
  My test for whether a certain behavior is the correct response to problematic one is: if the opposition took over my body and made me do stuff to drive as many people away from my cause as possible, what would they do?
  • 1MachineElf 4y ago
    This perspective is of critical importance. I wish more dialog and studies were devoted to it's exploration.
  • jhbadger 4y ago
    Except that absolutely sincere people do things that alienate potential supporters all the time. A lot of people (particularly people of Irish ancestry that live elsewhere) were sympathetic to the cause of Irish unification prior to the Troubles, but the terrorism committed by the IRA in the name of that cause pretty much destroyed international sympathy for that movement.
    • bawolff 4y ago
      I mean, i think that terrorism is the wrong way to fix problems, so i dont really see that as a counterargument to the grandparent's post. After all, sincere people can and often are counterproductive.
      • jhbadger 4y ago
        I was interpreting the hypothetical "if the opposition took over my body and made me do stuff" to imply that they believed that the art damagers were not really environmentalists but actually trying to discredit them by making environmentalists look crazy, but maybe they just meant "don't do stuff that will discredit your cause".
• guelo 4y ago
  That's just baseless conspiracy theory and ad hominem on your part.
• ransom1538 4y ago
  If Putin decides to end the US and Europe (which is a very real possibility), the climate will be forever destroyed. We need to put long term climate policies on hold, until we deal with this WORLD ENDING event: a Nuclear holocaust. Getting mad and putting paint on old art just seems childish at this point, there are bigger fish to fry.
  • rowanG077 4y ago
    I don't see how one excludes the other. What do we need to do with Putin that excludes us fighting climate change?
    • ransom1538 4y ago
      In my mind that is like taking a car to a carwash, right before driving it off a cliff. There really isn't a need for a carwash. There are 2k nuclear missles pointed to us - with a mad man about to push a button. Sure recycle. But.
      • threeseed 4y ago
        Well not everyone can be involved in international diplomacy. So for the rest of the world maybe we can focus on climate change.
      • rowanG077 4y ago
        So why are you still going to your job and working/studying/ doing whatever you do daily instead of going full time political activist or something else? After all your jdaily thing won't matter if the world dies in nuclear fire. By your own logic it makes no sense to continue working and instead you should divert all your resourced to stopping Putin.
        • ransom1538 4y ago
          That makes no sense. If you are worried about the climate being destroyed, I would focus on stopping a nuclear holocaust, which has a much more real chance of destroying this planet [currently]. If you are not worried about the world ending (and are normal), then ignore it.
• pelasaco 4y ago
• differentView 4y ago
  This is bigotry, to dismiss a person's sincerity because of their birth.
• LatteLazy 4y ago
  I feel the exact opposite. If you actually think global warming is an existential threat to our society, these are entirely logical actions. I respect them for having the strength of their convictions.
  • AdrianB1 4y ago
    Many, if not most, bad people were known for the strength of their convictions.
    • LatteLazy 4y ago
      As are all good people. The rest of us are just neutral... And ultimately, their crime is disrupting some museums, so they might be bad, but no more than people who litter or cheat on their taxes...
    • nonrandomstring 4y ago
      As is the case for good people. You've said nothing. Having the will to stand up for what you believe in remains a human virtue regardless of the belief. Though of course we'd wish for people to have good beliefs.
• hulitu 4y ago
  This is the sad state of todays organizations. Almost all are founded by "rivals" to distract from real world problems.
• mikrl 4y ago
  In the spirit of coming up with solutions when you criticize… what are you doing? You’re not in the news to my knowledge…
  • 3a2d29 4y ago
    The idea that something has to be on the news to be effective is hilarious. If most Americans curved their consumption (didn’t buy the latest iPhone every year, drove less) that would do way more than any climate change awareness. I get that people want to do radical acts because they feel good, but that doesn’t mean you are making a big difference. In short: lack of awareness is not what is in the way of preventing climate change, personal choices are. Personal choices don’t make the news, but are for more important than these acts, which make you feel good but don’t do anything.
• omginternets 4y ago
  I hold an unpopular opinion that this kind of activism is fundamentally the same quest for transcendent meaning as one finds in radical Islam. This is about people wanting to dedicate their lives to something greater than themselves, their material achievements, and hedonistic pleasures. The same can be said about the extreme fringes of most social activism. This is exactly what you'd expect from a society where a significant portion of people are alienated, experience their lives as meaningless or senseless, and where free-floating anxiety is rampant. To be sure, you would expect such people to seek meaning, to derive their sense of identity from the group that provides them with meaning, and to exhibit frustration and aggression towards the rest of society, from whom they are isolated anyway and therefore have a tendency to treat as an undifferentiated mass of "bad people". More concretely, you would predict these people chant the same slogans, and respond with extreme defensiveness when the thing that provides them with meaning is criticized. It should also be obvious that such people are inherently primed for action, and that a bit of money and encouragement is enough to set things in motion. EDIT: another thing that is hopefully obvious is that none of this precludes the existence of an actual environmental crisis.
  • mrwnmonm 4y ago
  • rsj_hn 4y ago
    > I hold an unpopular opinion that this kind of activism is fundamentally the same quest for transcendent meaning as one finds in radical Islam. I would believe that more if it weren't constantly done in front of TV cameras. This is about drawing attention to yourself because you can't convince someone with rational arguments. It is, ultimately, a tantrum as most of the world doesn't find their message convincing. The world needs fossil fuels, as Europe is discovering right now. Rich kids vandalizing art doesn't change the fundamental reality that fertilizer is made from natural gas and higher fossil fuel prices cause mass starvation - millions or billions would die if we stopped producing synthetic fertilizer from natural gas. And the price of natural gas directly drives the price of the food that the global south needs to buy each day. It's one thing for a London Art Student to say "I'm willing to pay more for bread", but it's quite another thing to impose those higher prices on the global South, as commodities are sold in a global market. That trumps whatever performative display these children throw. If they wanted to do things in a serious manner, they would work on developing technologies that would allow the world to create fertilizers, heat homes, and power industry in a cost effective way with alternate mechanisms. And if they lacked the skills to do that, they could fund the work of others to find feasible replacements. Ultimately it's technology, rather than tantrums, that will determine how food is grown and factories are powered.
• h0l0cube 4y ago
  > oil heiress Does not imply she wields actual power to change the oil industry. Does not imply she agrees with the moral choices of of her parents. And Getty Oil is no more: > Getty Petroleum filed for bankruptcy protection (Chapter 11) on December 5, 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Oil
• Aerroon 4y ago
  Wait, these "protesters" are getting paid to glue their head to the glass covering of the painting?
  • pvaldes 4y ago
    If there is a donor of money, it means normally that somebody is receiving money (and logistics and t-shirts)
• 1letterunixname 4y ago
  • s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I think the reaction that a lot of people have is that there's no lack of highlighting the dangers of climate change. We have a surplus of that. What we do have is a lack of people doing anything productive about it. At some point Grassroots groups for raising awareness need to shift to Grassroots groups for taking productive action. What If instead of spending time and money raising awareness, people started spending that time and money doing things like retrofitting the houses of others, or building and funding solar plants.