Terrorists' vandalising Stone Henge and trying to force govt policy

Stuff like this makes environmentalists seem like nutters. Does it get attention? Yes, negative attention.

When you say think about what words mean, then you may want to tell the fbi they are wrong in their definitions of what contributes as terrorism :

(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion

18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2009 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM
Sec. 2331 - Definitions
From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap113B-sec2331.htm

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism

That will only be a valid argument if I claim that such a campaign exists and is achieving anything. Which is what various posters have now done in relation to the Stonehenge fiasco. The burden of proof isn't fulfilled by randomly telling other people they need to prove claims they haven't made.

They aren't even proper graffiti vandals, never mind terrorists.

The more I think about your OP, the more I think you are unreasonable, unable to understand what words mean, unable to understand democracy and borderline offensive @FoxJTT047101111.

They’re an activism group, not a political party.

Why aren’t Mars standing candidates to have us all eat more chocolate ?

Fair point but to my mind the environment/climate should stand outside of any political affiliation. There should be a working party with members from all of the parties and this should continue regardless of who is in power. Hope that makes sense

Why aren't they fielding candidates in the election? Then people can vote on the changes they are demanding.

It’s a campaign. Designed to influence the agenda. And it works.

Despite your wilful ignorance of how actual modern activism works and it’s mechanisms of harvesting the attention economy…

Just seen a US commentator discussing this on a (very) US centric vlog.

I think that was rather the point.

Let us know how the "fossil fuels, lichen protection and sneering at other people" campaign gets on.

They're not terrorists, but their tactics are very counter productive. It's almost like they know they can't achieve what they want, but they're going to make a noise about it anyway.

Ah right, so it's just vibes then. Gotcha. Well, let us know when any actual meaningful change happens.

Of course I haven’t claimed that.

How could I ? I don’t keep watch over everyone in the world and look out for their new planet-positive behaviours. I have noticed the awareness and conversations though. I mean, this is how marketing works. Not all adverts say “buy our beer”, more likely they’ll make you think about beer in general and when given an A or B choice you will recall their brand and make that choice. Similarly here, the action will make you learn how concerned many of us are about the environment, and when given a choice you might think “actually, I’ll take the train, Susan’s point about the poisoning of the Niger Delta was pretty shocking”

And Stonehenge is part of a wider campaign, and the private jet stunt was linked to it. A one-two punch. It was deft.

They do.

Sorry, my steam-punk time machine isn't working so I can't currently stop that having happened.

It certainly goes in my mental scrapbook of 'performative historical events of great dumbness'.

Thinking back, I tied ribbons to the USAF fence at Greenham Common; I didn't deface Stonehenge. We got a lot of publicity for the 'actions' at Greenham.

The lichen and the monument is either protected or it isn't. And it is. So it should be left alone.

In fact the wider landscape of Stonehenge (the UNESCO world heritage site designation) is supposed to be protected, hence the widespread opposition to, and fury about, the tunnel scheme.

I think I may have been a member of Greenpeace before many MNers were even born, when the Rainbow had fuck all to do with special gendery identities and everything to do with protecting rare species. We seem to have forgotten all that we ever knew.

But what they did won’t destroy lichen. ‘They’ have said nothing about lichen. Posters in here have pointed out that climate change is a MUCH bigger threat to biodiversity and our survival. Which is true.

I disagree. There are lots of posters on this thread pointing out the peril that we are all in. That people are already dying and it’s only going to get worse.

Quite and its worse - it actively deters voters from the issues and enables the opposition to badge the whole environmental movement as Tarquins and Fionas being vandals. If some of the armchair clicktivists here could get their heads around the difference between signal and noise we might be in a better position.

However when their ignorance about the environment and species loss is displayed by casual dismissal of a rare species because "its only lichen, who cares" it marks them as someone with nothing intelligent to say on the matter.

I'm talking specifically about the Stonehenge fiasco. And I notice you still haven't claimed it's led to anyone actually doing anything!

Without this, millions of conversations would not have happened this week. Also, riling people up with Stonehenge so the conversations included a lot of “they should go after the billionaires” and then hitting private jets the following day was an absolute masterstroke. It’s incredibly finessed activism.

No, they aren't.

Evidence of people talking about what a bunch of arseholes they are is not the tactic working. Talking is not action. Even talking about cleaning up beaches is not action.

OH NO THE LICHEN

It's not the first time it's been used in this way

This WHOLE THREAD and many thousands more all over the internet as well as IRL conversations are the evidence of this tactic working.

It provokes an emotional response and puts the climate catastrophe into conversations.

If they had gone out and spent a day planting trees it would not have made a blind bit of difference to conversations, because it would have garnered no attention at all.

And in those conversations, even those who oppose this form of action often respond with things like “why don’t they use their time to clean up beaches” etc which is good, it makes them think about and talk about positive climate actions which seem “sensible“ compared to this kind of direct action.