scarabic

Why do people only ever talk about the carbon footprint

To be fair that is not what occurred. The comment was significantly more rounded than that.

Microplastics are the big focus right now, so actually bringing up carbon footprint diversifies the discussion. You’re actually saying stop - don’t bring that up?

I’m old enough to remember when plastic bags were considered the friendly option because they cut down trees to make paper. Anytime people focus only on one aspect, we come to the wrong decision.

Disingenuous, useful idiot… any other terms you heard online and don’t understand how to use properly? Words have meanings. They are not mere talismans to wave at someone.

Oh did I make you uncomfortable? I must be stopping oil.

Don’t hold you opinion so tightly that you start to believe anyone who disagrees with you must be being disingenuous. That’s a little free life advice. Animal abuse and vandalism are both crimes, as is destroying cultural artifacts. So do you want to explain to me in what way they are NOT on the same level?

If I run a red light wearing a “no oil” t shirt, is that a protest?

Well. If you’re going to bring out that argument regardless of how stupid, destructive, and ineffective the protest is, then I’m afraid your argument turns into that first one.

I’m going to go shit down the throat of a golden retriever in front of the White House to protest oil. Are you going to block and tackle for me, reminding my critics that effective protests are always uncomfortable? I’m just probing to see if you will just automatically say that or if you are evaluating the situation before saying it.

Literally anything is better than this. Taking the bus one day a month instead of driving is better than this.

Arguably, this action is negative because it discredits climate activists.

I get that you care about oil. That’s great. Now care about effectiveness for 60 seconds and you’ll realize that this is not a hill to die on.

Solared my house. Converted to LED lights. Invested in insulation. Consistently supported political candidates against fracking in primary races. Voted as liberally as possible in general elections. Bought electric car. Home battery. Systematically reduced power usage throughout the house. Systematically looked for ways to reduce plastic usage.

But that’s just a start. Next month I’m going to slop soup on a painting and REALLY make a difference.

Rich people profiting… is that your description of what happens at an art museum? Maybe you should get off the internet and go visit one.

I would still rather have a habitable planet for future generations than have Sunflowers

What a laughable false dilemma.

I'd rather side with the people who are trying to make a difference

Your instinct is laudable. Where your judgment is failing you is that these are not people who are making a difference. Stop straining to make something meaningful out of a random act of vandalism. The tiniest act of actual divestment from oil would be more meaningful than slopping soup at a painting. Take the bus one day a month instead of driving. That’s a difference.

Effective protests are uncomfortable. That doesn’t mean that any random act of vandalism is an effective protest. You’re trying to ask a relationship transitive which is not transitive.

What you’re really saying is that no effective protest will ever be welcomed as acceptable.

But the way you say it, that there will never be a right way, begs another question: just because legitimate protests will be called wrong, does that mean that all protests are right?

I don’t think so. This is a random act of destruction. I personally find it disgusting to compare this to MLK’s mass demonstrations.

I’m not sure it’s the acceptability that needs to be discussed here. In what way does this stop oil? The way you phrase your comment seems to presuppose that this is a useful action but some find it unacceptable. You’re skipping right over the main problem with this. Destroying art is not a useful act.

I can understand calling theologians philosophers but being a philosopher does not make you a scientist.