Just Stop Oil: do radical protests turn the public away from a cause? Here’s the evidence : science

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 28 points 4 months ago

It does kinda make sense

I am not in favor of this tactic (nor of blocking random-commuter roads) but I would never dream of saying “okay that’s it, because that happened I have now decided that climate change is not important anymore.” I cannot imagine any too significant amount of the public operates that way.

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 27 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

"Radical" :

Sprays famous rocks with corn starch
Throws soup at some plexiglass
Glues hand to some road (more damage to the hand than the road) and makes a temporary trafic jam.

You can't get less radical than this, because then it wouldn't be a protest.

These people have my respect, because they play "the traditional media" like a fiddle.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The public are not the people that need to be convinced. Threaten cultural landmarks until politicians stop fighting climate change mitigation.

[–] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

idk, it still feels like a fucked up thing to target. why not like... their houses?

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

I'm mostly ok with it because that's how the suffragettes were able to see success. They faced the same "but it hurts the cause" claims

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The alternative is a hit list on the people behind the resistance. That will come in time on the present trajectory. This is only the beginning.

[–] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

i just... harming the cultural artifacts is damaging to all of humanity. they should be targeting the people responsible more directly first. target their houses and their boats and them personally. target their families and the people around them. target the art they own...

hell, the same group does do things that hit the appropriate targets. i just don't think they're going the right direction with the art protests specifically.

the article is right, this isn't going to change anyone's mind one way or the other. it's not going to affect the minds of oil execs. the most it might do is increase the donations to the police that guard the art. it is at Best, mildy counterproductive.

the most it will do is piss everyone off. everyone is already mad, this is just making it worse.

it's destroying our common heritage. the history that we can see on front of us. to learn from where we came and see how we can progress.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

so you're more concerned about the status of our stuff than the survival of the species that creates the stuff?

also, what has been destroyed?

nothing. nothing has been destroyed.

[–] poVoq 2 points 4 months ago

First off, nothing was destroyed or even significantly damaged so far.

Secondly, targeting individuals carries a much higher risk of civil litigation, potentially bankrupting the individual protestors for life. It is understandable that people don't really want to risk that. And it is also much less effective if your main goal is to incite media coverage to keep the topic in the public debate (as it is otherwise easily drowned out by what ever is the latest media freak-out incited by pundits like Trump that play a similar game).

[–] silence7 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I don't think the current round of art protests turn people away — but they also don't really help much. There's actually a body of research about what works: large groups, acting nonviolently, with coherent coordinated demands that can be acted upon.

[–] Five 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Thank you for sharing the supporting article. Sometimes, evidence contradicts intuition. From your link:

Less is known about the relative impacts of non-violent but disruptive tactics. “Is it better to throw soup on a painting, or block traffic, or glue yourself to something?” says Dana Fisher, a sociologist at American University in Washington DC. “We don’t know which is the most effective.”

But there is evidence that these types of protest can have an impact. Social Change Lab gathered opinions in three surveys — each asking around 2,000 people — before, during and after disruptive protests in the United Kingdom by Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion in April 20228. The protesters blockaded oil depots and glued themselves to government buildings and oil-company offices. Most people who were surveyed opposed the actions, but continued to support climate policies and Just Stop Oil’s goals to stop new fossil-fuel projects. This counters the view that disruptive action can sour public opinion on an issue.

Overcoming bias is an essential part of science literacy in both acknowledging climate change as a phenomenon and policy change to prevent it.

[–] silence7 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yeah, disruptive can be completely acceptable. The problem is that it takes more than just disruptive to be effective — not just avoiding a negative impact, but having a positive one.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

It makes people angry at those individuals who destroyed the art, which does detract from their message on a subconscious level.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Destroying priceless art doesn't make me think less of our need for change, but it certainly makes me think less of the people who destroyed it.

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Where are you getting the idea that they're destroying pieces of art?

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

There was a pro-palestenian protest where they cut a hundred year old painting up with a razor blade.

[–] Five 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You're shifting goalposts and conflating two different groups with different ideas and tactics.

Just Stop Oil activists protest in museums with timeless paintings with great cultural and historic significance. They take care that their actions don't irrevocably harm the art. The priceless quality of the art is essential to the message of the protest, as it contrasts with the priceless nature of what climate change is in the process of actually destroying.

The anti-genocide protester damaged a portrait of a British statesman displayed on the wall of a public area of Trinity College. This is part of a conceptually distinct form of protest where activists challenge public monuments to people with tainted legacies. The artistic merit of these products were pedestrian even for their time, and merely being old does not endow them with intrinsic cultural value. People concerned about the preservation of similar works have moved them to museums where their public display is less likely to be interpreted as an endorsement of their subject's legacy. One could argue that a greater artistic value comes from the creative defacement of these publicly displayed political advertisements that have long-since outlived their historical moment.

Do you carry the same outrage toward the destruction of monuments to Confederate commanders or defacement on Nazi memorials?

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

So that means you don't have a problem with all the other protests that didn't do anything like that?

[–] perestroika 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

But that’s not what we found. In fact, experimental manipulations that reduced support for the protesters had no impact on support for the demands of those protesters.

We’ve replicated this finding across a range of different types of nonviolent protest, including protests about racial justice, abortion rights and climate change, and across British, American and Polish participants (this work is being prepared for publication). When members of the public say, “I agree with your cause, I just don’t like your methods,” we should take them at their word.

Wow, that is both new (at least for me) and interesting - thanks for sharing this article. :)

I note a potential weakness in the method of analysis: if negative framing (e.g. by the media) reduces support for the protesters as persons (but not their cause), it may still somewhat harm their ability to bring about change, since it probably reduces people's willingness to team up with them - but not another group which has the same cause but different methods.

So, if the goal is mass action (which has a component of mobilizing like-minded people to join) I would strongly recommend a protester to choose non-controversial methods (so that even grannies can join). :)

[–] Five 2 points 4 months ago

I would be shocked if negative framing did not have an effect, but unfortunately a tasty negative angle is exactly the kind of bait an antagonistic press is likely to go for in order to give the action greater coverage.

I've lost count of how many people have come here confident that JustStopOil has 'destroyed' art or 'damaged' stonehenge, and a couple that think the private jet action was a failure because they didn't paint Taylor Swift's plane specifically. All of them angles that hacks in the press have taken with these stories. Luckily, bastions of media literacy like the Fediverse exist, and while many of these people are difficult to disabuse of their false narrative, the actual story has definitely gotten better vote scores. Lemmy has been an even better platform in this regard than Reddit, which is a massive win for what we're trying to do here.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I am sure that "Just Stop Oil" are working for the oil industry by discrediting all environmentalists as loonies. Change my Mind.

[–] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Nice conspiracy.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Well, that is the primary effect that their actions have: environmental groups are considered more often as "potentially dangerous" since "Just stop Oil", "Extinction Rebellion", and "Last Generation" suddenly popped up out of the nowhere into the limelight with their crazy and stupid stunts.

[–] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Reactionaries will always piss and moan about every kind of protest; "stupid stunts" or otherwise. Those are the people you don't listen to, because if they had it their way, there would be no protesting.

The fact is that even their outrage draws attention to the issues and non-disruptive protests typically don't have anywhere near that level of notoriety.

Edit: adding a sourced article that cites multiple studies on the matter.

[–] stabby_cicada 4 points 4 months ago

Environmental groups are considered more dangerous now than they were in the 90s/00s when Earth First and ELF were burning down homes, Sea Shepherds were sinking whaling ships, and there was this guy named Ted in a cabin in Montana you may have heard of?

Citation fucking needed.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

pretty sure the sockpuppet brigades of "these protests are worse than the pollution" and "protest never changes anything" are are working for the oil industry. In fact:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/10/study-fossil-fuel-industry-lobbying-anti-protest-bills/

[–] Thcdenton@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago

Just dont fuck with my day. If you block the 405 to save the earth, I'm gonna burn some tires in my back yard.

[+] Fallenwout@lemmy.world -8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Here is what I've learned: If you see an angry person with purple or green hair, they are emotionally unstable and impossible to have a civilized argument with.

Their cause to steer away from fossil fuels is a very good cause to strive for. But only when the technology is there to bridge the gap when renewables aren't producing energy. We're getting there, but not today.

And the actions and unrealistic demands of this spoiled university brat who's living the good life isn't helping their cause. There are several interviews of this girl, when you see them you will wonder how on earth is she in a university, she's not smart at all, she can ramble though

[–] lud@lemm.ee 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We absolutely are the technology to at the very least drastically reduce the usage of fossil fuels.

[+] Fallenwout@lemmy.world -8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Yes we have, but I can't afford it. These stop oil want to redirect subsidizing from oil to renewable. This sound great in theory until you think about all you need to go renewable: a lot of solar panels for sun, wind turbines for winter, large battery, gas boiler replaced with heat pump, petrol car replaced with electric (wife), motorcycle replace with electric (me commute)

No matter how much the government subsidizes this, this will bankrupt every middle class worker with a mortgage 3x over. And even if you want to do the conversation step by step to save up, in the meantime your unsubsidized fuel is 5x more expensive so you have nothing to save up.

[–] stabby_cicada 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You might be interested in this climate misinformation chart.

Hint: you're at the top of the "climate delay" section.

[–] Fallenwout@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I guess I am. But they should add "too poor to convert to electric" in that bubble.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What? No, that makes no sense.

Why would renewables be that expensive?

The electricity grid should absolutely be replaced ASAP. Old homes with ancient gas, coal, and oil heating will also need more modern alternatives like geothermal, heat pumps, or even direct electric heating.

Not literally every single thing needs to be replaced today.

It will take time but we should ramp it way up.

[–] Fallenwout@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

You're ignoring my statement when you say "not everything needs to change today".

When subsidizing switches from oil to renewables (this is what stop oil wants) there is no gradual transition because oil will be too expensive. If that happens I can't afford heating or transportation unless I replace those with electric, which I can't afford either.

[–] lefaucet 1 points 4 months ago

Waiting around for the technology to magically pop up will doom us to an unending dustbowl and war and maybe even extinction

Technology doesnt get developed unless there is demand, except by university kids who take out massive loans to do the work of research.

We need to create demand by demanding action by governments and divesting from fossil fuels. That is the intent of the protestors.

I've besn participating in non-obstructive protests for almost 2 decades and it's done virtuallty nothing

What you are seeing is desperation. We need financial incentives for going green dont pan out for 50 years so nobody cares. Most people are to busy trying to pay rent this month to care about 50 years from now.

BTW if 50 years ago folks had heeded the initial warnings of scientists and curbed emissions by 0.5% annually, global warming would not be an issue.

Instead we drastically increased emissions since then, we now need to cut a ridiculous percentage annually and we're still going to lose trillions of dollars to climate related damage, crop loss and climate-related wars.

[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works -3 points 4 months ago

The university gets paid the same amount for graduating dumbasses and geniuses

[+] Aux@lemmy.world -12 points 4 months ago

Rich kids who don't have to work with an attention whore syndrome.

[+] Nunar@lemmy.world -15 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I can say for me they do. Whether it actually damages precious public things or not is irrelevant. The conversation isn't "oh man, what can I do to stop climate change and stop big oil interests" it's, "what a bunch of shits and now I want to burn tires to show I don't support their cause.

They need to be public and not be assholes about it. I want to have more renewable energy options and less carbon products but blocking traffic and desecrating Stonehenge doesn't give me any actionable things. Except to adamantly disavow their movement.

They think it starts conversation, but it doesn't. Not the way they want. It's not meaningful. And she said they wouldn't actually do it if there was the possibility of damaging the art? Cletus isn't going to take that into consideration. He's going to say "fuck that idea I had about solar because the solar folks are damaging museum things!"

It's really disappointing because I get and support the cause, but I truly believe they're damaging any support with their short-sighted antics.

They need a better leader

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

They think it starts conversation, but it doesn't. Not the way they want. It's not meaningful

This is exactly the opposite of what the article, and the scientific research in it concluded.

They need a better leader

And this is authoritarian-speak.

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 4 months ago

There is no conversation. There is no cause. Burning tires would be against your own self-interest. Why do you think it's their responsibility to persuade you of that? If Cletus doesn't install the solar, his own grandkids will suffer.

It isn't up to them to persuade you or Cletus. You know the facts. You need to be fighting for your own future.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

What a load of reactionary contrarian bs

Science