Just Stop Oil/Extinction Rebellion

What do you think to it all then?

I’m strongly a believer in both, and I’m just watching Steph’s Packed Lunch and Russell Kane has summed it up quite well - he too is a paid up member of the green party, but his argument is that the protesters should target posh villages/BP/Shell head offices, rather than making everyone hate them by blocking London roads.

I’m not sure exactly where I stand and I don’t know enough so interested in hearing other views!

Just to add straight off the bat, violence against protesters is absolutely abhorrent and anyone doing it should be thrown the book.


In fairness he’s right.
Gonna play devils advocate here a bit so don’t @ me or any shite.

For any revolution to work you’re going to need the support of the proletariat.

A lot of modern protests are just rubbing the public the wrong way. At best creating a sideshow that is meme worthy and at worst creating circumstances for actual severe consequences/safety.
Yeah defacing a painting or throwing orange dust on a snooker table might get you 15 minutes of fame - but its not going to change anything, will likely make people think you’re a dick, and you’ll probably just be a meme we’ll all forget about after a week.

Do actions that directly affect the perpetrators/companies/criminals and that have real benefits. Protestors have stopped trees being cut down by tying themselves to the trees - not by tying their neck to a goalpost at an unrelated football match.

And the people who block the roads? Is that inconveniencing any of the billionaires/fuckers or impact them financially? Not in the slightest


Was quite surprised at this logical response


YARN | No, I like the way I said it better. | Wayne's World 2 (1993) Music | Video clips by quotes | f6aa03ab | 紗

But aye he’s clearly got a good grasp on it and speaks very well. No wonder he went into politics (albeit for the baddies)

Quite a lot of the ‘‘I agree with them but they’re doing it wrong’’ narrative I find extremely irritating. The general public don’t get to choose the method of disruption reactions to inaction/public crisis cause. If they did literally nothing would ever be changed and no social uprisings would ever have been successul.

And if someone’s cloth eared enough to get so angry at the methods they’re then happy to actively deny climate change or any political movements that may improve methods, they deserve the inevitable flood that’s coming, frankly.

Tldr, they don’t need to win hearts and minds when there’s a literal apocalypse at your door.


more power to them tbh. come to the conclusion that revolution is more or less an activity for the middle classes now - anyone living in poverty, the majority of workers, in fact, don’t have the time or support to organize and disrupt. maybe I’ve got them wrong, but a good proportion of them seem to be fairly comfortable, educated white people.

they should go further than what they’re doing, in fact.


Gbol and the more people they wind up, the better


If people think blocking a road temporarily is inconvenient then they’re gonna be mind blown when said road is 12ft under water.

By any means necessary imo


i love this man so much



I can’t remember if that’s another thing that happened this season but feels like it was about 3 years ago

Was late last season iirc

1 Like

tangentially related, but I think one problem with the left for ages and ages now, are the champagne socialist academics who direct their energy towards trying to provoke the working class poor into being disruptive on their behalf, and think they’re enacting revolution by simply pointing things out on the internet and telling people to join unions etc, whilst obviously remaining completely comfortable themselves.

direct action from anyone who can do it imo.


I think this is part of what Russell is maybe saying.
Its middle class people doing protests that disrupt the lives and escapes of ‘traditionally’ (tho obv not exclusively) working class. The football, snooker etc.

The protests should punch upwards more at the upper classes, companies and guilty.

If not whats the point especially if as has been said elsewhere in this thread its not their job to win hearts and minds. So if thats the case then whats the goal: wind up the public AND not achieve any success via ineffectiveness.

It doesn’t particularly bother me have at it.

But something that I suppose nobody is asking and for me would go a long way to help the cause and maybe think about their work life/balance in maybe a wider context is why are people who are going to work or school getting so angry about it all?

Disrupting big events, closing roads, etc gets big attention. Nobody gives a fuck if they put the windows through at Shell headquarters.


this was good

I think it’s good to throw dust at the snooker maybe as part of a process that could lead to more radical action

The only person I know who was organising with them was like a 17/18 year old kitchen porter I worked with who was definitely not middle class.

I can tell you’re passionate about it.
But basically: are both of those options not quite ineffectual in terms of any real change?
Just one of them pits you against the public.

Think when people are e.g. gluing themselves to motorways it’s more effective than e.g. defacing artworks. When you’re putting yourself in danger and breaking the law for what you believe in I think people are more likely to listen to what you’re saying. The stuff in art galleries and at that snooker thing just seem like they’ve found the least likely place they will be harmed / be charged with a serious crime

1 Like

I think any personal inconvenience is probably outweighed by the fact that I’m doing almost nothing to support their cause (other than the most basic of lifestyle adjustments e.g. driving less, cutting out meat, avoiding short-haul flights). So, at least they’re doing something and until I’m doing something more effective they can crack on.