Terrorists' vandalising Stone Henge and trying to force govt policy

You don't quite seem to have understood how this works.

The people making the claim, that's the ones who are defending the vandalism, are the ones who have to provide the proof. I am very, very willing to listen to actual evidence. None of them have managed it yet. All we know so far is that it's ill disposed many people and, on the other side, one poster said it reminded her to contact her MP about a green matter.

So, where is the evidence that it has changed the status quo for the better?

Indeed, @SocoBateVira has yet to provide evidence to back up their claim that it hasn’t achieved anything.

Do you know what’s worse than doing nothing? Drilling for yet more oil.

Do you have any evidence that it hasn't been a net gain, or improved the status quo? Just your opinion?

Lots of you seem to keep coming back to this whenever your faith is challenged. It comes from the fundamentally flawed that it's better to do something than nothing. It's not. It depends what the something is. You can make things worse instead of better.

And as you're not the first person to default to this comment, you'll find I've actually already answered it. I'd simply not vandalise Stonehenge. That would completely remove any of the pain or problems it caused, and there's no proof it would be any worse for the environment either. Because, after all, none of you have managed to provide any evidence that vandalising Stonehenge has been a net gain. Still.

Basically, if you want to make the what can you do better then argument, you need to start by proving you've improved the status quo. That needs more than declarations of faith.

Exactly. What marches?

Even this will not be enough evidence of a 'groundswell of support' for those who live in their small bubbles.

Article by Zoe Williams in the Guardian today, comparing the massive media coverage of the Stonehenge protest to the near silence over the HUNDRED THOUSAND people marching to restore nature in London at the weekend. This is why people will continue to chuck orange stuff at iconic monuments.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/24/the-nature-march-had-a-huge-turnout-so-why-didnt-it-make-bigger-news

So what do you suggest we do then? You're very good at criticising the actions of others but I've yet so see you make any suggestions for action yourself. As has been said several times now, tell us what to do that isn't already/hasn't already been done and we will do it.

All publicity is not good publicity. This blind faith at the root of the JSO defenders arguments is why they're all so weak. It'll work eventually because people are stupid if they don't react in the way you want them to.

There's no evidence that merely being discussed actually does anything. Even your one anecdotal example would need to be balanced against any negative effects on other people's behaviour. It doesn't matter how dense you think those people are. Their actions and views are as important as yours in the whole picture because, as you said yourself, this impacts all of us.

Also, you can't simultaneously argue that people being sympathetic to the cause doesn't matter and that some people will be spurred to action therefore the stunt has worked, and that people will eventually realise. The latter requires people being sympathetic to the cause.

That’s tabloidspeak there. JSO aren’t being “holier than thou” at all. And they’re absolutely not trust-fund “luvvies” at all. In the main, ordinary and very worried citizens. One of the activists involved at Stansted airport was a former corporate sustainability officer who realised that the “accepted” face of climate action in business - ESG disclosures / carbon accounting etc - was just bean-counting intent on hiding a business-as-usual approach and not actually achieving anything. Her anger and frustration with corporate apathy led her to direct action.

This is a long way from your simpleton tabloidesque characterisation of the passionate activists taking direct action for our shared future- yes, even yours.

People being sympathetic to the cause isn’t the aim though is it. JSO aren’t after anyone’s sympathy. They don’t want to change your mind or anyone else’s. They just want to keep it on the radar. All publicity is good publicity.

I’m sure some people do decide they are going to ignore the facts because they don’t like what JSO are doing. My point is that it doesn’t matter. Firstly anyone that does is a bit dense anyway (because there is no one that this doesn’t or won’t impact) and once the tide turns and finally everyone is hit in the face with it, they will realise.

But some people will be reminded of the threat and spurred to action. I’m pretty good at keeping my carbon footprint lower than the average in this country, and I do a lot of emailing my MP etc, but being on this thread has reminded me that there is more I can do. So it has worked.

But mostly the stunts are to get the climate emergency talked about again because it’s easy to get sucked back into day to day life and forget the peril we are in. Marches and petitions don’t grab headlines in the same way. JSO know they will piss people off but are putting keeping the emergency on the agenda before that.

Actually it’s often concerned grandparents who know that a prison sentence, whilst hard for them, won’t effect their future and is far easier to tolerate than what we are leaving behind for their grandchildren.

They are uber attention-seeking trust fund Luvvies!

"Look at me - I'm Holier-Than-Thou!"

And they're frequently headed up by the likes of Saint Emma Thompson, sometime "actress", who was at it again at the weekend. (At the front as usual!)

I don’t think we know that 100%. That might have been said and it might be written down but we don’t know where things would have gone had the war not happened and we don’t know how many people started to consider it because of those shocking actions. Bombs and arson, however, I can’t condone as it could cause harm to others.

It didn't. Women's war work did.

I’m glad you feel that way. I did think of all the druids and whether it might be upsetting. I am a bit upset at art and significant parts of our history being effected but I fully support them trying to keep the message live and loud. I also know that they never do permanent damage and never hurt anyone. These are mostly (I’m sure there are a few arseholes as there are everywhere) gentle, compassionate, intelligent, informed but understandably worried and angry, people who just can’t sit idly by while we all self destruct.

Ok. But none of this actually refutes the point I was making, so it's not an agree to disagree situation. I said that it's possible for stunts like Stonehenge to achieve nothing, or even to make people less sympathetic to their cause. It clearly is. You don't have to want that to be true to accept that I'm right.

There've been a number of people in this thread who, when confronted with this unpalatable truth, have said some variant of well people are stupid then. Maybe, but that's something you (general) are going to have to factor in if your belief is that enough of this is going to persuade them at some point.

Yes. Quite. And swift action is what was and still is needed to prevent the worst effects of climate change not stop the actions of a few people that are trying to do whatever they can.

Im sure they are and that’s what I find so admirable about people willing to risk prison because they care enough to try to do something. It’s often grandparents who are worried for their grandchildren.

No. I’m saying I don’t understand why more people aren’t angry and taking to the streets. Our Government has put oil profits above our safety and security. I think if more people genuinely understood what’s at stake, how long it’s been known, and how little has been done and why, I think there would be riots. I’m not sharing a preference for what people should do. I’m just amazed people aren’t angrier.

I think changing public opinion is like changing a flotilla of boats rather than changing a huge tanker. Some people reading the posts by the people who do get the dire situation we are in might go and look it up, learn a bit more. The more you learn about it all (if you use reputable sources and check for bias) you can’t fail to see this as a MASSIVE threat to our existence. Anyone who ‘turns away’ from thinking this is an issue due to the actions of JSO is, quite frankly, daft. It’s shooting the messenger - which doesn’t change the message. And that message is we are headed for (already heading for) catastrophe and more robust action is needed and fast and that can’t happen without legislation.

You maybe have heard about fires in places like California and Australia, for example, which have been attributed to climate change.
Other countries have also experienced significant flooding.

It was Corn flower, it will wash off very easily.

Protest is essential in a democracy & no one was hurt.

So its ok to vandalise the planets climate but Cornflower? lock em up!!!

This is basically you saying you want people to react differently? That you wish they would do more, rather than ignoring or even being put off by this. You're entitled to your wishes, but the fact that they haven't is actually proving my point. There are multiple posters in this thread claiming that merely being talked about and the subject of attention is actually changing anything. It's evidently not.

I'm incredibly suspicious of both. They work hand in hand and I don't trust either of them in the slightest.

100% agree with this, and I am an initiated Stone Henge druid. There are important matters which need attention.