[Other Sport] Protester climbs onto crucible snooker table

[Thunder Bolt]

well i read it as increasing the profile leads to increased agreement on the issue, assumes awareness means support, so more people will join the cause. because if you are aware of this issue you must be in agreement its very imporant, and that their solution must be the right one. i heard lady from JSO make similar case on Newsnight, seems a common belief in this circle. like said earlier, their ego trip drives them to conclusion everything they do is right. i agree direct action gains publicity, i dont agree it necessarily leads to positive engagement.

When did you get your qualifications in psychology?

 

[jcdenton08]

Come on GB, you know better than to use the 'most people' trope. You don't know most people.

I only know that he has a lot of support via social media and is well supported via crowd funding. When the police took his equipment away, there were offers from legal beagles saying it was unlawful, and many offering to replace the speakers, amplifiers etc.
You obviously don't agree with his methods but he does get up the noses of politicians who want to ride roughshod over us all.
Why should he be quiet?

These “social media” supporters disappear faster than a Magnum bar on the surface of the sun. Anyone can gain a huge social media following if appealing to fringe loons; QAnon, Alex Jones… it doesn’t represent support from the silent majority.

Shouting loudly does not equal support. Support is winning hearts and minds. Those who aren’t complaining are satisfied. It’s the first rule of activism.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Voting intention which way?

Personally these JSO wallies have put me off ever voting Green in my life. If they stop our game on Sunday they'll also lose a lot of younger voters or people like my son who can vote in just over a year.

Same thing happened with Brexit. The more people stated what a stupid idea it was the more other people dug their heals in and eventually a common sense outcome was totally avoided. The bellend who then spent the next three years outside Parliament yelling "STOP BREXIT!" during every news broadcast only made people hate him.

What I think they were saying is soo you might despise JSO, however within the public consciousness is the thought that despite them being a bunch of twats, we do really need to stop using oil.

If people then put sustainability and renewables high on their voting intention priority, then each party will need to accommodate that to whatever degree. So regardless of whether you genuinely get mad and angry at JSO, the issue of how much oil, or whatever else because an agenda item. As well it should be.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

These “social media” supporters disappear faster than a Magnum bar on the surface of the sun. Anyone can gain a huge social media following if appealing to fringe loons; QAnon, Alex Jones… it doesn’t represent support from the silent majority.

Shouting loudly does not equal support. Support is winning hearts and minds. Those who aren’t complaining are satisfied. It’s the first rule of activism.

I said he had financial support from a lot of people. I didn't say the majority or most people support him.

Support for getting rid of Brexit is going up with 63% now realising it is a disaster. They don't all support Steve Bray but it is hardly a fringe loon theory

 

[jcdenton08]

I said he had financial support from a lot of people. I didn't say the majority or most people support him.

Fair enough, I missed that. Same applies. Tories have huge financial support…

 

[Bold Seagull]

well i read it as increasing the profile leads to increased agreement on the issue, assumes awareness means support, so more people will join the cause. because if you are aware of this issue you must be in agreement its very imporant, and that their solution must be the right one. i heard lady from JSO make similar case on Newsnight, seems a common belief in this circle. like said earlier, their ego trip drives them to conclusion everything they do is right. i agree direct action gains publicity, i dont agree it necessarily leads to positive engagement.

So yeah, I agree part of it is engaging other like minded people to join the cause and see action as a necessity for change. What the article is addressing though is people who say it alienates more people against the cause than it does to it. The outcome they say is that more people do think using less oil is important to them because it has been highlighted through discussion and becomes pushed up the political agenda, even if they despise JSO. The effectiveness of protest is not about agreeing with the protestors, their methods or what have you, it's whether the cause becomes important enough to change how policies are formed. Policies are formed by how important people think things are at the time of voting.

 

[jcdenton08]

So yeah, I agree part of it is engaging other like minded people to join the cause and see action as a necessity for change. What the article is addressing though is people who say it alienates more people against the cause than it does to it. The outcome they say is that more people do think using less oil is important to them because it has been highlighted through discussion and becomes pushed up the political agenda, even if they despise JSO. The effectiveness of protest is not about agreeing with the protestors, their methods or what have you, it's whether the cause becomes important enough to change how policies are formed. Policies are formed by how important people think things are at the time of voting.

If the methods used are disliked by the public, they don’t listen to the message - in fact, it can make them hate the message solely because of how it is being delivered.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Fair enough, I missed that. Same applies. Tories have huge financial support…

That doesn't equate to voting intentions.

 

[Guinness Boy]

What I think they were saying is soo you might despise JSO, however within the public consciousness is the thought that despite them being a bunch of twats, we do really need to stop using oil.

If people then put sustainability and renewables high on their voting intention priority, then each party will need to accommodate that to whatever degree. So regardless of whether you genuinely get mad and angry at JSO, the issue of how much oil, or whatever else because an agenda item. As well it should be.

No, sorry, that's written like people don't know there's a current and impending climate crisis partly caused by fossil fuel.

Of course they know that already. It's all over the media almost every day, not because some privileged, attention seeking rent-a-protest is gluing themselves to a Belisha Beacon but because new data is constantly produced, car companies are actively selling EVs, a walk down Hove seafront now has a view of wind turbines instead of Shoreham Power Station belching out smoke. You can already pick between the Green's purist policies, Labour's mixed policies, the Lib Dems growing shades of green or the Tories vaguely signing up to be carbon neutral by 2050 or whatever.

That's why likening it to our fight for a ground is a false equivalence. Almost no one knew about Archer and none outside the club cared up until York City and Fans United. Raising awareness was exactly what was needed, we kept the protests in context, in the ground or at Archer's house and the movement slowly grew. Even then it took Tony Bloom to build the Amex to save us fully. But there are plenty of people in England who will be eating more vegetarian food, noticing how much warmer it is and how many more storms or extreme temperatures there are, watching ads for EVs or buying hybrids instead of diesels. They have naturally changed their behaviour due to society and due to what big companies now offer for sale, not because Tarquin's doing a sit in on the Wembley penalty spot. All that will do is mack off 80,000 in the ground and millions more getting to watch a rare big game for free on terrestrial telly.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If the methods used are disliked by the public, they don’t listen to the message - in fact, it can make them hate the message solely because of how it is being delivered.

Football fans demonstrating for a new home. There was a lot of opposition from many factions, like the South Downs Society, the Lib Dems in Lewes, the Regency Society all well funded, but they didn't win despite the lies told about football 'hooligans'.

 

[jcdenton08]

Football fans demonstrating for a new home. There was a lot of opposition from many factions, like the South Downs Society, the Lib Dems in Lewes, the Regency Society all well funded, but they didn't win despite the lies told about football 'hooligans'.

See the post above addressing this; puts it better than I could.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No, sorry, that's written like people don't know there's a current and impending climate crisis partly caused by fossil fuel.

Of course they know that already. It's all over the media almost every day, not because some privileged, attention seeking rent-a-protest is gluing themselves to a Belisha Beacon but because new data is constantly produced, car companies are actively selling EVs, a walk down Hove seafront now has a view of wind turbines instead of Shoreham Power Station belching out smoke. You can already pick between the Green's purist policies, Labour's mixed policies, the Lib Dems growing shades of green or the Tories vaguely signing up to be carbon neutral by 2050 or whatever.

That's why likening it to our fight for a ground is a false equivalence. Almost no one knew about Archer and none outside the club cared up until York City and Fans United. Raising awareness was exactly what was needed, we kept the protests in context, in the ground or at Archer's house and the movement slowly grew. Even then it took Tony Bloom to build the Amex to save us fully. But there are plenty of people in England who will be eating more vegetarian food, noticing how much warmer it is and how many more storms or extreme temperatures there are, watching ads for EVs or buying hybrids instead of diesels. They have naturally changed their behaviour due to society and due to what big companies now offer for sale, not because Tarquin's doing a sit in on the Wembley penalty spot. All that will do is mack off 80,000 in the ground and millions more getting to watch a rare big game for free on terrestrial telly.

I doubt anyone is going to try and stop our game nor the Sheff Utd v Man City game. They are only semi finals and not important enough imo.

The demonstrations start today for four days at Trafalgar Square and Westminster Square. There are plenty of opportunities in Central London for publicity.

 

[worthingseagull123]

Some good news to report.

 

[Acker79]

If the methods used are disliked by the public, they don’t listen to the message - in fact, it can make them hate the message solely because of how it is being delivered.

I'm not wedded to the argument, just saw it and found it interesting, so Idon't know that I can argue this with any particular passion or knowledge, but



Seems to suggest the message does penetrate even when the methods are not liked.

That original thread also contains links to this one making similar points

 

[Bold Seagull]

No, sorry, that's written like people don't know there's a current and impending climate crisis partly caused by fossil fuel.

Of course they know that already. It's all over the media almost every day, not because some privileged, attention seeking rent-a-protest is gluing themselves to a Belisha Beacon but because new data is constantly produced, car companies are actively selling EVs, a walk down Hove seafront now has a view of wind turbines instead of Shoreham Power Station belching out smoke. You can already pick between the Green's purist policies, Labour's mixed policies, the Lib Dems growing shades of green or the Tories vaguely signing up to be carbon neutral by 2050 or whatever.

That's why likening it to our fight for a ground is a false equivalence. Almost no one knew about Archer and none outside the club cared up until York City and Fans United. Raising awareness was exactly what was needed, we kept the protests in context, in the ground or at Archer's house and the movement slowly grew. Even then it took Tony Bloom to build the Amex to save us fully. But there are plenty of people in England who will be eating more vegetarian food, noticing how much warmer it is and how many more storms or extreme temperatures there are, watching ads for EVs or buying hybrids instead of diesels. They have naturally changed their behaviour due to society and due to what big companies now offer for sale, not because Tarquin's doing a sit in on the Wembley penalty spot. All that will do is mack off 80,000 in the ground and millions more getting to watch a rare big game for free on terrestrial telly.

We're in 2023, the climate crisis has been on the agenda as long as I can remember, at University in the early 90s it was at the forefront of everything. We're still electing governments that don't really see it as a massive issue. So is it really as you say something people know enough about already, or treating it as a key priority in their voting just because some people are buying EVs and switching to vegetarian diets?

When it looked like Tory voters might be thinking leaving the EU was an important priority for them, DC bent over and dramatically changed Tory policy. If climate and fossil fuel usage really is seen as a key priority, then it would have a dramatic impact on policy but it hasn't. Being content that Rampion wind farm, some EVs and converted vegetarians is enough evidence of how many people understand the impending climate crisis is probably why others are ramping up their protests.

 

[jcdenton08]

So much conflation here. It is where the entire debate falls down.

Intensive crop farming has an enormous detrimental effect on the environment, but this doesn’t fit in with the narrative. The protestors want everyone to become vegan, not because of environmental issues, but because they find people eating meat abhorrent. Then they conflate the two issues, ignoring other massive elements contributing towards climate change which aren’t part of their agenda.

 

[pure_white]

I read the Metro newspaper yesterday and it was talking about Marathon organisers trying to prevent the Marathon being disrupted by every Tom Dick Harry and nutter protesting - no mention of Wembley but football has been targeted in the past. Thankfully security is generally tighter.

 

[Guinness Boy]

We're in 2023, the climate crisis has been on the agenda as long as I can remember, at University in the early 90s it was at the forefront of everything. We're still electing governments that don't really see it as a massive issue. So is it really as you say something people know enough about already, or treating it as a key priority in their voting just because some people are buying EVs and switching to vegetarian diets?

When it looked like Tory voters might be thinking leaving the EU was an important priority for them, DC bent over and dramatically changed Tory policy. If climate and fossil fuel usage really is seen as a key priority, then it would have a dramatic impact on policy but it hasn't. Being content that Rampion wind farm, some EVs and converted vegetarians is enough evidence of how many people understand the impending climate crisis is probably why others are ramping up their protests.

In a way that's my point. People care on a micro level and will change individual behaviour to suit, but on a macro level they want government to be about more than a single issue (or we'd have a Green government now).

This is despite Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil, Greta Thunberg, naked bike rides, non stop green agendas at festivals like Glastonbury going back well over a decade and more.

People want their government to do more than set a green agenda. That may sound nuts but most of us live in the now, and the majority are happy to accept small changes but not to spend their lives wearing a hair shirt just so their kids can, erm, spend their lives wearing a hair shirt. Humans like fun, they like risk, they like the taste of meat, they like travel. I couldn't live my life without those things and don't intend to in the future. I also don't vote Tory.

 

[Deleted member 37369]

Come on GB, you know better than to use the 'most people' trope. You don't know most people.

GB can include me in his 'most people' comment

 

[Deleted member 37369]

I only know that he has a lot of support via social media and is well supported via crowd funding.

Oh ... and 'support via social media' doesn't reflect support in 'real life'. Social media tends to reflect polar opposites of opinion. So you'll no doubt have as many thinking he's an idiot as support him.