The important question that Alex points towards here is: What if your form of protest does not achieve your goals? When should you escalate? And before you judge here: I think that even the most extreme forms of action are sometimes valid, just think of the assassination of Hitler.
More extreme than killing Hitler would be abducting Goebbel’s children and killing them unless the Reich was overturned. Do you think that would be justified? Do you know who does think that’s not extreme enough? Mr and Mrs Goebbels.
@@w1ntermute1 yikes. Where is the point that we are executing children and still calling ourselves the good guys? Would I kill one child of a nazi to save 6 million Jews? That’s a hell of a big trolley.
re: the bottom 50% suffering due to green energy policies. To say that is to ignore the same 50% who will bear the largest impact of climate change. Yes, policies can and will cause harm - but the status quo will, without a doubt, cause massive suffering for far longer than any individual's lifetime.
destiny's point at the end was really interesting the one about people becoming more rational when you make their beliefs tangible (by making a bet)...
The climate emergency is unfortunately one of those game theory dilemmas: - every player (country) stands to gain by changing strategy COLLECTIVELY - very few players, if any, stand to gain by changing strategy INDIVIDUALLY In a civilised country, you have an elected government that imposes taxes, regulations, laws etc. to produce collective benefits that don't rely on voluntary contributions. In this world, however, there is no equivalent form of government that can impose rules on all countries collectively, so each country must act voluntarily. Therefore, only the few who'd benefit from doing so actually act, and those few unfortunately do not include the ones who created this emergency in the first place.
@@Jorge_Vegano the tragedy of the commons. When there’s a free, shared resource people would use it until destruction rather than not get their “fair share” Some Americans say “if we spend on inefficient green projects, China isn’t doing that so their economy will expand faster than ours” So what? What’s the point of having the biggest economy if we destroy every economy (and the people behind them) in the process? Maybe the people at the top are just too old to care what happens when they aren’t around anymore.
china is the leading state that adopts nuclear AND coal power plants. The problem of energy is always a concern. poverty and political instability is a major concern for states
What if you live in a Democracy, but the rulers are STILL preventing "the will of the people" from happening? Would it be OK to have radical protests then?
@darylphuah great question, but ultimately, it comes down to what you belive the role of government is. If your of the belief that the role of the government is to inact the will of the people then good idea bad idea is irrelevant. If you think it is to guide/control/shape society or the people then refusing to inact the will of the population is applicable.
When it comes to protesting, blocking traffic is the most moronic thing someone can do. You are putting yourself and others at risk, and pissing off anyone you might grab the attention of. Further, when it comes to environmental issues, be the change. Plant trees where trees are needed, take boats out to clean the oceans, make the effort yourself, instead of making everyone else's life hell. Bitching about oil companies on twitter or in the street is nothing compared to taking actions that make a difference.
People need to call it what it is which is civil disobedience. It's not a protest. We had this same issue in Canada where a bunch of anti-vax """"protestors"""" blocked a bunch of highways between Canada and the US. Its not cool when the left does it and it isn't cool when the right does it.
The argument would be that individual changes will be beneficial in short-term and do matter, but it won't prevent the more catastrophic consequenses that follows from fossil fuel industry. I would also like to say that blocking roads is a very commonly used form of demonstration, not used to convince the drivers on the road but rather to create conversation and hit government where it hits them the most, which is the economy.
The idea that greenlighting effective methods of protest (and we will put aside Just Stop Oil, who don't seem to be progressing their ideals) should be reliant on whether we should be okay with those we disagree with using those methods seems like it isn't an idea with legs. Racists can vote. I don't think it's especially good that if enough racists get together they can elevate racist ideas. If such a candidate implemented racist policies, I would say one should actively protest those policies, maybe even violently, regardless of whether you're in the minority or not on that issue. That doesn't mean I think racists should potentially violently protest when they don't get their policies through. If an idea is dangerous, it sometimes need to be stomped out by loud, angry people when legal and more peaceful solutions aren't working. We can't always go "Would I want the other guy to do this about something they want?" Maybe if we lived in a highly reactive and empathetic society that quickly addressed the major needs of human beings as they arose, but we don't.
That's because you think in online headlines and clickbait titles. People believe in climate change widely but once you start discussing what to do abt it that when the serious disagreement start.
@@myself2noone2% better? We keep doing more and more thank goodness but we are objectively getting worse and worse faster. Methane emissions are increasingly rapidly. Permafrost melt is releasing vasts amounts of it caused by global warming in a positive feedback loop. We need to do more and more just to keep afloat. People like you keep underestimating our state... When does the El Nino end btw? Temperatures have been the highests since records began for the last year and a half!
THat would probably be because the propoesed methods to do something about it would bankrupt all of us and the people who are proposing them are not actually interested in solving the problem. Meanwhile, anyone who propoeses an actually workable method is reviled because it tends to involve nuclear power and adaption rather than blowing up fossil fuel plants.
Because they sort of are. Like, stand-alone generation of power for renewables at this point is cheaper from my understanding. The problem is that solar, wind, and hydroelectric all have to contend with some other factors that drive up the cost. The advantage of hydrocarbons is that they're really a store of energy; you're not truly gathering it, and it's energy-dense-you can move it to locations without much issue. Solar's primary issue is that you can only generate electricity for a fraction of the day: 9 AM to 5 PM in summer (8 hours), 10 AM to 2 PM in winter (4 hours). And you need clear skies. So if you wanted to go 100% solar for all your needs, you would need to have energy storage to cover your gap hours plus a buffer of several hours to handle bad days, enough solar collectors to recharge your storage in 4 hours, and the transmission line infrastructure to reach the locations you want to provide power to (you also need to factor in transmission line loss). Wind has similar issues but is a little better. Hydroelectric is really the only form of power that doesn't have the base load problem as much. But there are a bunch of ecological issues that come into play with hydro. The primary issue with hydro is that all the best places for it are in the middle of nowhere or are geopolitical bombshells. It would have been great if we had invested more in nuclear energy. If we had kept the same percentage of investment in nuclear power from the 1970s onward to today, we might have had much cheaper nuclear power.
I saw an article exsplaining why violence is a less effective means of protest because non violent protests "build wider coalitions" and that "violence can scare away potential alies". Apparently this is what the evidence suggests acording to the article
Building a wide coalition doesn't inheritly translate to building active powers to your cause. Wide coalitions often come with wide compromises that water down your action. Very often a smaller more focused group is better at achieving what a wider more contradictory group cant do. That study probably is not focused on results but instead on some other arbitrary metric like "support" I.e. 'People ostensibly on your side'.
@@petersamson5407 idk why you're suggesting avant garde is something I'm in to or advocating. Just because they talked about that sort of thing doesn't mean I advocate it. However politics is always about violence. Politics is about decision making in groups. Decisions result in rules. Rules require the backing of violence or else they are merely requests. Ergo all politics is predicated on the management of systemic violence. However you seem to be asking about unofficial violence. And in that regard too it is also useful. The American revolutionary war is an example. Hell even Destiny talked about the civil rights movement. Non violence was the part the media latched on to in order to resolve the tension of that era but that era was incredibly violent. Civil rights leaders got in shootouts with the KKK. There were bombings and burnings. Let's not forget the violence that won the 8 hour work day in America. Despite whatever propaganda says to the contrary the labor movement was incredibly radical and violent. The battle on Blair Mountain. The Haymarket Massacre. Countless brawls, shootouts and battles with Pinkertons and cops. Those battles won us a middle class in the end. Forced the president to acquiesce and implement the new deal to prevent revolutionary overthrow. Violence was involved in every major reform in our country as well as the regressions. Violence overthrew reconstruction. Violence perpetuated and increased jim crow. Both vigilante violence as well as state violence.
@@random_bit Revolutions of natives against colonisers were met with even harsher reprisals. SO thats kind of an anti point. The MLK thing is arguably a riot when the peaceful side has already done the work such that the riot creates sympathy. The haitian question is very sketchy. For a start, it resulted in a new invasion by france followed by a deal for the french to withdraw that made haiti pay france for nearly 2 centuries. Then the government went corrupt and started being aggressive to its neighbours, after murdering every white person on the island, even if they backed the revolution. Haiti was a disaster. Its freedom from france to become a disaster doesnt tip it into the good and its constant instability makes it questionable if it can be considered to be lasting. The only lasting thing is coming from frances side, more heavily due to them having other issues that haiti had no effect on. So, you didnt really contradict him and its no hard to produce examples where violence in protest was what brought about defeat. The revolution of 1848 in austria for example, the french protests in the 60s against degaulle too.
Relatively speaking, these climate protests aren't extreme; the truly extreme actions lie with governments still awarding new oil contracts, despite the urgent need for intervention to prevent climate catastrophe and the truly extremely severe consequences we'll face. People think groups like Just Stop Oil are extreme because they don't fully grasp the truly extreme consequences of government and public inaction, or actions to the contrary.
But they are extreme, you should read the judgement awarded to the people convicted for 'a Skype call'. The problem of climate change is far more complex than 'stopping new oil in the U.K.'
The destiny guy seems to have the most "not my problem" centrist view. That retrospective view that "everyone new it was bad so we changed it" which is simply not how change ever happens, ethics and morality for the majority nearly always comes after law.
Literally how did you come to this understanding of what he said? Both his example of the monk lighting himself on fire and the example of the black kids getting attacked by dogs were explicitly about getting people to notice things were bad through extreme action as people would not take action against things as they didn’t care about them until they were forced to confront it from people who did care?
Cornflower, glass etc, yeah but theres always a fucking risk. These guys are happy with risking our most precious monuments and artifacts for their own beliefs.
It also never has the intended social effect they hope to achieve. Quite the opposite, really. There are two ways to convert someone to a thing. You either persuade them or you conquer them by force. This sort of thing is neither. It's just like a child knocking over a glass to break it to get his parents' attention. And the only attention the parents will give the child is a good spanking.
These guys are being pathetic here, every march there has ever been blocks traffic. If you can’t tolerate blocked traffic then you are simply against protest. Drive up the M1 any day and you will find blocked traffic. Drive in London any day - blocked traffic. Get a grip. There is a clear path forward - don’t licence any new oil drilling Stonehenge gets rained on. Aaaarrgh. How can we tolerate it.
"There is a clear path forward - don’t licence any new oil drilling" - and then our society collapses, because we currently get in excess of ninety percent of our energy by burning things. Awesome idea.
"There is a clear path forward - don’t licence any new oil drilling" Yeah it's that simple, now that the east has become more antagonistic these last few year, let's do that and let the east take over the world in a century or so, that sure would make the world a better place huh? Because Russia, China and Iran care so much about making the world green, right? How childish.
I think the animalistic rage comes from their sheer audacity. Honestly, to me, it is their unabashed willingness to do the things they do. And honestly, the traffic stuff is way different to me, because this immediately causes harm for people in medical emergencies and EMTs and all. AND, with how far these roads back up, there are so so many people that it is just absolutely ridiculous to feel so self-important at the expense of people's real-time issues
@@Grubiantoll And you stop acting in a way you know is wrong until a new path is clear. You don’t need to have “an answer” before deciding to abandon a poor course of action.
@@christopherevogt It's enough to know that something is wrong in order to device a proper solution, but I would digress that on itself its enough reason to just stop it. For example, "just stop oil" would cause a series of economical and social catastrophes (specially to poor developed countries) if it's not done with, at least, a partial and concrete alternative. Right now, even all alternative forms of energy production COMBINED could not replace half of the energy produced by Fossil fuels. And we know who will pay the broken plates for such a change (Not the ones that should). Not against protest btw, even though I believe that Art vandalization is kind of stupid.
@@christopherevogtthe issue is we can’t just stop acting in the way we know is wrong without destroying everything else and effectively stopping everything. But doing things like this just makes people less willing to listen to you and way more hostile to any action you have.
I urge anyone who disagrees with JSO to google the EACOP Pipeline. It’s being built by Total, which they protest against. It’s an oil pipeline that’s being built in East Africa. The environmental impact of it is evil. And it’s displaced villagers from their homes due to the destruction of villages.
I urge anybody who agrees with JSO to remember they are paving the way for every other disgruntled group to protest the way they do. Just wait until the LBMC (Lets burn more coal) starts painting trees black.
Have you ever been in a situation where you feel no one is listening to you? You raise your voice, yell, signal, jump up and down eventually you feel frustrated, angry. You want to bring attention to what you are saying. You become desperate and you do desperate things. The level at which we are consuming oil is not to sustain humanity, but to sustain economic growth to feed the capitalist greed of the few. Carbon emissions are an existential problem. Destiny saying what "just Stop Oil" is doing is stupid and the mater is complex is simply gaslighting the matter. We don't have time to argue about feelings or what sort of protesting is acceptable and what is not. We are all comfortable where we are and we will only do something once the annoyance overwhelms the comfort. Centrists are yappers, more interested in current comfort than doing the right thing. Also why are you interviewing Destiny???
Isn’t protesting about achieving a goal though? Appropriate vs inappropriate boils down to effective vs ineffective. Seems to me these types of protests are against company executive actions but taken out on uninvolved people
@@2DayDavid they have sprayed orange on private jets before as well and that still wasnt good enough for people. I think they should keep hammering that sort of stuff but they can't keep throwing all their members into police custody like that
We do have time. That's part of the point. Your neotoddler rant is wrong. I'm sorry, Daddy didn't stop to get you McDonald's, but big boys don't throw tantrums when they don't get what they want.
Shouting never convinced anybody. Unless the person wanted to prove that he/she is a jerk. And no one is listening? $2 trillion is being invested in clean energy this year. Just exactly how much listening do you want? Stop using the internet you might just save a tree.
Enraging people only hurts your cause. You won't irritate and inconvenience people into agreeing with you. If recognizing this obvious truth is "centrism," color me a "centrist."
Destiny says that the stop oil protests are aiming towards a broad and complicated issue. Couldn't be more wrong. The protest always aim towards specific policies
@@MrMusashiMusashi The problem with transitioning from oil isn’t just fuel but also all the by products we use in every facet of society. I have to have a biologic infused and by products exist in the saline bags, tubing and even medicines. When people transitioned from horse/mules to the automobile there wasn’t a slow transition and it created upheaval for those who raised horses and mules for a living, those who built carriages, those who manufactured saddles etc. Transitioning from oil will cause a greater upheaval and create new problems such as how to satisfy power consumption for EVs. My husband works for the largest power supplier in the South and more than half of their power supply comes from coal and about 30% from nuclear. And that supposes that governments actually implement legit climate control changes within large scale industries across the board which is unrealistic if those changes interfere with their profit margins. I’m not saying switching to an alternative in the future is inherently bad to prevent deadlier storms and famines but reality unfortunately suggests there will be sacrifices in order to do so. This is the definition of an existential crisis.
Your message might be true or important, but if you come off as a jerk while saying it, everybody will perceive you (and your message) as a jerk. JSO are being jerks. Stop being jerks?
Says it’s really dumb, the proceeds to say it has a place in society for things that they think doesn’t have the level of visibility. That is exactly their point🤪
fym "that's exactly their point"?? climate change is one the most talked about issues, literally everywhere. To do something about it is hard because it's a super complicated issue
Except they're wrong. There's no such thing as 'Raising visibility' about Climate Change, because outside of the absolute lowest level of totally disconnected and disengaged citizens (Who won't watch the news to hear about the protest anyway) there is no such thing as an adult human being in an industrialized western country who has not heard about climate change.
Climate change is and has been talked about extensively in schools and in politics, even before these pretentious activist groups were formed. Your point about it not having enough visibility is not applicable here, at least not in europe where Just Stop Oil is operating. If they want change so bad they should be protesting in places like China, Iran and Russia, but they won't because they themselves don't think the situation is literal life and death and would rather do this for their own amusement by annoying other citizens.
The same groups who do these demonstrations against oil are almost always the same people who are against nuclear energy. Might not be the case for stop oil but it has historically been the case.
@@lennmusicman but even if I was making it up, it is a reality that if you stop traffic, there's people in need of help that you are stalling. Giving birth, opportunity of a lifetime... and so many others. But hey, whatever we do to others ends up coming back to bite us, even if we had good intentions. So 30 years from now when you need to get some place and you're stopped, remember to cheer and not get angry
@@random_bit it's the only infrastructure we have available. But what would be a better infrastructure while you're at it? And those infrastructures are not counting on criminal activity. Helicopters cost money and not all are available at all times. That hospital wasn't of real merit. Who cares? Still, the protesters were the ones who caused the death. Shifting blame doesn't remove your actions. But you'll find a way to not feel bad that your tantrum had negative outcomes. Thank God, God is real and everyone will pay for their actions, even if they somehow can rationalize it. Have fun
Destiny’s argument that protesters shouldn’t protest about complex topics is disingenuous at best and completely absurd at worst. Environmental groups, and all world governments, have clear ideas about what action is needed, and though there are unanswered questions this is not the topic of protest. I wonder what issue is sufficiently black and white to this man to be worth protesting? I'm sure when we have groups that are protesting for the right of newborn children to not have the eyes cut out of their heads Destiny will be on the streets.
They may have clear ideas, but that in no way means that their ideas are either sensible, warranted, workable or even address the problem. Stop oil for example is a bunch of lunatics and their ideas are idiotic.
@@colamity_5000 His argument is essentially, it’s complicated so I don’t understand why they’re doing it, what specifically are they aiming to achieve? Is it right for people to protest in ways that affect other people (he also conflates the JSO movement with Covid mandate protests in Canada which is completely unfair)? We don’t live in an authoritarian government and therefore we have no right to protest because our democracy is perfectly representative of the will of the people (this argument is so stupid it also seems dishonest)? I think destiny doesn’t fully grasp climate change and its implications and is confused by protests in the spirit of JSO. He talks a lot about solar panels and I genuinely believe that’s indicative of the extent of his understanding.
@@maximtcaciuc2904 The more you read about and around these topics, the more you realise the solutions are simple and in many cases well defined but there is no political impetus or courage to enact them. If you spent no time at all thinking about an alternative way of living I understand how people can see them and think ‘but we use oil for everything?’ but I expect more of politicians and long term strategies.
I'd say not understanding the difference between "woman" and "female" and thinking "adult human female" is a tautology is "pretty dumb", but hey I'm just a nobody.
Economic divestment from any entity committing a genocide isn't complicated and actually IS a concrete actionable step. It's literally a step in a pathway of pressure to end the genocide. Destiny is too smart to make an argument THIS stupid.
@@jnnyg7101 (destiny is not smart) that may or may not be true but I think it still stands that even a dumbass is smart enough to make a better argument. ;P
@@jnnyg7101 I definitely think it's motivated reasoning. Destiny sees himself as fundamentally aligned with the neoliberal status quo. He sees it as his job to defend it, uphold it, strengthen it. Sometimes (rarely) that means protecting it from itself by critiquing what he sees as it's excesses but normally that just means running interference for it.
He's rhetorically very effective and aggressive in a way that isn't seen on the left. Helps too that he actually reads up on everything he talks about, which evidently is enough to put pressure on the pundits he talks to.
Oil will get rid of itself in due time. It's a finite resource that'll only get more expensive and renewable energy will only get cheaper. Money talks.
@@dmitrishostakovich3156 For sure. We should still be doing everything we can to reduce emissions. I'm just saying that it's becoming financially incentivized to do so as clean energy gets cheaper than fossil fuels.
@@stevensiwinski Even when that becomes the case, the earth will have warmed up due to our CO2 emmisions to such a degree that life on earth will be miserable for a lot of people.
@@stevensiwinski It's the main reason people talk a lot on the topic of climate change, as it directly correlates on the matter of energy production. It's actively not as simple as that, as for a very big chunk of people clean energy does not include nuclear, leaving only solar and wind (hydro and geo are basically maxed everywhere), which are not constant meaning they need something stable and constantly producing... which is going to be fossil fuels if Nuclear is not present. This is why Oil companies fund every Green political party. We have Germany and Austria as a perfect example for that As a general statement, renewable sources of energy are more incentivized than ever. There are a lot of funds and basically every big western country has billions of funds for them, which however won't ever be enough on its own, because intrinsically fossil fuels are necessary to compensate for the dips in energy production that wind and solar have (again, if you don't have nuclear in the mix)
That is like saying that eventually War will stop because we will run out of Humans when we are all dead from the Nuclear fallout. The point of Just Stop Oil is that we don't have the time or the luxury to wait. Emissions needed to stop yesterday.
Why would you spend so much time on Minecraft mimicking reality and then argue on your phone about your reasoning? You build your home, but your home is not external. Ask any real mountaineer, not a Mt Everest tourist. If only you had a major goal. Oh, you do Mars. God, the university is so boring. So you play Minecraft. I wonder where birds sleep and whales need to breathe. He gets his cash from cyberspace but still thinks he flushes his toilet with bottled water.
despite my general annoyance with destiny due to seeming like a psudo-intellectual, he definitely seems to have a grounded opinion on this topic, I do agree quite heavily with him that this is such a complex topic that isn't that easy
The important question that Alex points towards here is: What if your form of protest does not achieve your goals? When should you escalate?
And before you judge here: I think that even the most extreme forms of action are sometimes valid, just think of the assassination of Hitler.
More extreme than killing Hitler would be abducting Goebbel’s children and killing them unless the Reich was overturned. Do you think that would be justified?
Do you know who does think that’s not extreme enough? Mr and Mrs Goebbels.
@@soyevquirsefron990 Go Balls
@@soyevquirsefron990 That would be extremely justifiable actually, easily.
@@w1ntermute1 yikes. Where is the point that we are executing children and still calling ourselves the good guys? Would I kill one child of a nazi to save 6 million Jews? That’s a hell of a big trolley.
@w1ntermute1 I mean the demand is too high in that example though. There has to be a reasonable expectation of your demands being met.
re: the bottom 50% suffering due to green energy policies. To say that is to ignore the same 50% who will bear the largest impact of climate change. Yes, policies can and will cause harm - but the status quo will, without a doubt, cause massive suffering for far longer than any individual's lifetime.
destiny's point at the end was really interesting
the one about people becoming more rational when you make their beliefs tangible (by making a bet)...
The climate emergency is unfortunately one of those game theory dilemmas:
- every player (country) stands to gain by changing strategy COLLECTIVELY
- very few players, if any, stand to gain by changing strategy INDIVIDUALLY
In a civilised country, you have an elected government that imposes taxes, regulations, laws etc. to produce collective benefits that don't rely on voluntary contributions.
In this world, however, there is no equivalent form of government that can impose rules on all countries collectively, so each country must act voluntarily.
Therefore, only the few who'd benefit from doing so actually act, and those few unfortunately do not include the ones who created this emergency in the first place.
@@Jorge_Vegano the tragedy of the commons. When there’s a free, shared resource people would use it until destruction rather than not get their “fair share”
Some Americans say “if we spend on inefficient green projects, China isn’t doing that so their economy will expand faster than ours”
So what? What’s the point of having the biggest economy if we destroy every economy (and the people behind them) in the process?
Maybe the people at the top are just too old to care what happens when they aren’t around anymore.
Its a lie
@@soyevquirsefron990 it's also a stupid argument, because China is a global leader in green tech atm.
china is the leading state that adopts nuclear AND coal power plants. The problem of energy is always a concern. poverty and political instability is a major concern for states
What if you live in a Democracy, but the rulers are STILL preventing "the will of the people" from happening? Would it be OK to have radical protests then?
No. Act like a civil human. Vote. If want to live in a country where you always get your way, you want to live in a dictatorship.
what if the will of the people is incredibly stupid and would lead to the collapse of said society?
@@darylphuah It's a slippery slope.
@darylphuah great question, but ultimately, it comes down to what you belive the role of government is. If your of the belief that the role of the government is to inact the will of the people then good idea bad idea is irrelevant. If you think it is to guide/control/shape society or the people then refusing to inact the will of the population is applicable.
There was this one young man recently in the USA who bought a rifle and went to a rally with it to do something rather radical....
When it comes to protesting, blocking traffic is the most moronic thing someone can do. You are putting yourself and others at risk, and pissing off anyone you might grab the attention of.
Further, when it comes to environmental issues, be the change. Plant trees where trees are needed, take boats out to clean the oceans, make the effort yourself, instead of making everyone else's life hell. Bitching about oil companies on twitter or in the street is nothing compared to taking actions that make a difference.
People need to call it what it is which is civil disobedience. It's not a protest. We had this same issue in Canada where a bunch of anti-vax """"protestors"""" blocked a bunch of highways between Canada and the US. Its not cool when the left does it and it isn't cool when the right does it.
Protesters* lol
The argument would be that individual changes will be beneficial in short-term and do matter, but it won't prevent the more catastrophic consequenses that follows from fossil fuel industry. I would also like to say that blocking roads is a very commonly used form of demonstration, not used to convince the drivers on the road but rather to create conversation and hit government where it hits them the most, which is the economy.
The idea that greenlighting effective methods of protest (and we will put aside Just Stop Oil, who don't seem to be progressing their ideals) should be reliant on whether we should be okay with those we disagree with using those methods seems like it isn't an idea with legs. Racists can vote. I don't think it's especially good that if enough racists get together they can elevate racist ideas. If such a candidate implemented racist policies, I would say one should actively protest those policies, maybe even violently, regardless of whether you're in the minority or not on that issue. That doesn't mean I think racists should potentially violently protest when they don't get their policies through. If an idea is dangerous, it sometimes need to be stomped out by loud, angry people when legal and more peaceful solutions aren't working.
We can't always go "Would I want the other guy to do this about something they want?" Maybe if we lived in a highly reactive and empathetic society that quickly addressed the major needs of human beings as they arose, but we don't.
Because climate change is “popular” but almost nobody does anything about it…
People are constantly doing things about it. But "we're 2% better than yesterday" doesn't make the news.
In 2024 about $2 trillion is planned to be spent as investment on clean energies. "Nobody doing anything about it" is quite the understatement.
That's because you think in online headlines and clickbait titles. People believe in climate change widely but once you start discussing what to do abt it that when the serious disagreement start.
@@myself2noone2% better? We keep doing more and more thank goodness but we are objectively getting worse and worse faster. Methane emissions are increasingly rapidly. Permafrost melt is releasing vasts amounts of it caused by global warming in a positive feedback loop. We need to do more and more just to keep afloat. People like you keep underestimating our state... When does the El Nino end btw? Temperatures have been the highests since records began for the last year and a half!
THat would probably be because the propoesed methods to do something about it would bankrupt all of us and the people who are proposing them are not actually interested in solving the problem.
Meanwhile, anyone who propoeses an actually workable method is reviled because it tends to involve nuclear power and adaption rather than blowing up fossil fuel plants.
Why do people always says renewables are more expensive when they arent on the whole
This is a statement so broad you need to bring at least something to back it up before anyone can say anything meaningful.
If you dont add the negative externalities that come from oil theb its very much not true. It why green energy is subsidized to be competitive.
That's true of all energy sources. The level of subsidies given to fossil fuel companies are astronomical.
Solar power suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux
Because they sort of are. Like, stand-alone generation of power for renewables at this point is cheaper from my understanding. The problem is that solar, wind, and hydroelectric all have to contend with some other factors that drive up the cost. The advantage of hydrocarbons is that they're really a store of energy; you're not truly gathering it, and it's energy-dense-you can move it to locations without much issue.
Solar's primary issue is that you can only generate electricity for a fraction of the day: 9 AM to 5 PM in summer (8 hours), 10 AM to 2 PM in winter (4 hours). And you need clear skies. So if you wanted to go 100% solar for all your needs, you would need to have energy storage to cover your gap hours plus a buffer of several hours to handle bad days, enough solar collectors to recharge your storage in 4 hours, and the transmission line infrastructure to reach the locations you want to provide power to (you also need to factor in transmission line loss).
Wind has similar issues but is a little better. Hydroelectric is really the only form of power that doesn't have the base load problem as much. But there are a bunch of ecological issues that come into play with hydro. The primary issue with hydro is that all the best places for it are in the middle of nowhere or are geopolitical bombshells.
It would have been great if we had invested more in nuclear energy. If we had kept the same percentage of investment in nuclear power from the 1970s onward to today, we might have had much cheaper nuclear power.
Yes let's drive to Stonehenge using oil to stop oil.
I saw an article exsplaining why violence is a less effective means of protest because non violent protests "build wider coalitions" and that "violence can scare away potential alies". Apparently this is what the evidence suggests acording to the article
Building a wide coalition doesn't inheritly translate to building active powers to your cause. Wide coalitions often come with wide compromises that water down your action. Very often a smaller more focused group is better at achieving what a wider more contradictory group cant do. That study probably is not focused on results but instead on some other arbitrary metric like "support" I.e. 'People ostensibly on your side'.
@@zeroclout6306Can you give an example of when a violent “avant-garde” like the one you seem to like, achieved something long-lasting and good?
@@petersamson5407 idk why you're suggesting avant garde is something I'm in to or advocating. Just because they talked about that sort of thing doesn't mean I advocate it.
However politics is always about violence. Politics is about decision making in groups. Decisions result in rules. Rules require the backing of violence or else they are merely requests. Ergo all politics is predicated on the management of systemic violence.
However you seem to be asking about unofficial violence. And in that regard too it is also useful. The American revolutionary war is an example.
Hell even Destiny talked about the civil rights movement. Non violence was the part the media latched on to in order to resolve the tension of that era but that era was incredibly violent. Civil rights leaders got in shootouts with the KKK. There were bombings and burnings.
Let's not forget the violence that won the 8 hour work day in America. Despite whatever propaganda says to the contrary the labor movement was incredibly radical and violent. The battle on Blair Mountain. The Haymarket Massacre. Countless brawls, shootouts and battles with Pinkertons and cops. Those battles won us a middle class in the end. Forced the president to acquiesce and implement the new deal to prevent revolutionary overthrow.
Violence was involved in every major reform in our country as well as the regressions. Violence overthrew reconstruction. Violence perpetuated and increased jim crow. Both vigilante violence as well as state violence.
@@random_bit Revolutions of natives against colonisers were met with even harsher reprisals. SO thats kind of an anti point.
The MLK thing is arguably a riot when the peaceful side has already done the work such that the riot creates sympathy.
The haitian question is very sketchy. For a start, it resulted in a new invasion by france followed by a deal for the french to withdraw that made haiti pay france for nearly 2 centuries. Then the government went corrupt and started being aggressive to its neighbours, after murdering every white person on the island, even if they backed the revolution.
Haiti was a disaster. Its freedom from france to become a disaster doesnt tip it into the good and its constant instability makes it questionable if it can be considered to be lasting. The only lasting thing is coming from frances side, more heavily due to them having other issues that haiti had no effect on.
So, you didnt really contradict him and its no hard to produce examples where violence in protest was what brought about defeat. The revolution of 1848 in austria for example, the french protests in the 60s against degaulle too.
@@petersamson5407 Stonewall?
Just stop oil?! I'll get him with the door!
Relatively speaking, these climate protests aren't extreme; the truly extreme actions lie with governments still awarding new oil contracts, despite the urgent need for intervention to prevent climate catastrophe and the truly extremely severe consequences we'll face. People think groups like Just Stop Oil are extreme because they don't fully grasp the truly extreme consequences of government and public inaction, or actions to the contrary.
But they are extreme, you should read the judgement awarded to the people convicted for 'a Skype call'. The problem of climate change is far more complex than 'stopping new oil in the U.K.'
The destiny guy seems to have the most "not my problem" centrist view. That retrospective view that "everyone new it was bad so we changed it" which is simply not how change ever happens, ethics and morality for the majority nearly always comes after law.
Agreed. His only positive contribution to culture is do draw people away from the far right. He's not an open, nor curious individual
@@DenKulesteSomFins”don’t let your mind be too open, your brain might fall out”
@@WiscoMTB37 Thought stopping cliche
Literally how did you come to this understanding of what he said? Both his example of the monk lighting himself on fire and the example of the black kids getting attacked by dogs were explicitly about getting people to notice things were bad through extreme action as people would not take action against things as they didn’t care about them until they were forced to confront it from people who did care?
@@tiggerbane4325glaze
This guy definitely wants them to take MPs as hostages very based
Cornflower, glass etc, yeah but theres always a fucking risk. These guys are happy with risking our most precious monuments and artifacts for their own beliefs.
lol our precious stuff. We spend so much to protect so little
It also never has the intended social effect they hope to achieve. Quite the opposite, really. There are two ways to convert someone to a thing. You either persuade them or you conquer them by force. This sort of thing is neither. It's just like a child knocking over a glass to break it to get his parents' attention. And the only attention the parents will give the child is a good spanking.
These guys are being pathetic here, every march there has ever been blocks traffic. If you can’t tolerate blocked traffic then you are simply against protest.
Drive up the M1 any day and you will find blocked traffic. Drive in London any day - blocked traffic. Get a grip.
There is a clear path forward - don’t licence any new oil drilling
Stonehenge gets rained on. Aaaarrgh. How can we tolerate it.
"There is a clear path forward - don’t licence any new oil drilling" - and then our society collapses, because we currently get in excess of ninety percent of our energy by burning things. Awesome idea.
"There is a clear path forward - don’t licence any new oil drilling" Yeah it's that simple, now that the east has become more antagonistic these last few year, let's do that and let the east take over the world in a century or so, that sure would make the world a better place huh? Because Russia, China and Iran care so much about making the world green, right? How childish.
I think the animalistic rage comes from their sheer audacity. Honestly, to me, it is their unabashed willingness to do the things they do. And honestly, the traffic stuff is way different to me, because this immediately causes harm for people in medical emergencies and EMTs and all. AND, with how far these roads back up, there are so so many people that it is just absolutely ridiculous to feel so self-important at the expense of people's real-time issues
Well that ending was abrupt
New channel name!
Do you need to have a solution? Isn’t it enough to know something is wrong?
Well then congratualtaions, everyone already knows. And?
@@Grubiantoll And you stop acting in a way you know is wrong until a new path is clear. You don’t need to have “an answer” before deciding to abandon a poor course of action.
@@christopherevogt It's enough to know that something is wrong in order to device a proper solution, but I would digress that on itself its enough reason to just stop it. For example, "just stop oil" would cause a series of economical and social catastrophes (specially to poor developed countries) if it's not done with, at least, a partial and concrete alternative. Right now, even all alternative forms of energy production COMBINED could not replace half of the energy produced by Fossil fuels. And we know who will pay the broken plates for such a change (Not the ones that should). Not against protest btw, even though I believe that Art vandalization is kind of stupid.
@@christopherevogtthe issue is we can’t just stop acting in the way we know is wrong without destroying everything else and effectively stopping everything.
But doing things like this just makes people less willing to listen to you and way more hostile to any action you have.
I urge anyone who disagrees with JSO to google the EACOP Pipeline. It’s being built by Total, which they protest against. It’s an oil pipeline that’s being built in East Africa. The environmental impact of it is evil. And it’s displaced villagers from their homes due to the destruction of villages.
I urge anybody who agrees with JSO to remember they are paving the way for every other disgruntled group to protest the way they do. Just wait until the LBMC (Lets burn more coal) starts painting trees black.
@@adam-k shut up dude lmao
Hasn't changed my opinion at all.
@@william4996 gfy dude
The positives outweigh the negatives. Simple.
Have you ever been in a situation where you feel no one is listening to you?
You raise your voice, yell, signal, jump up and down
eventually you feel frustrated, angry.
You want to bring attention to what you are saying.
You become desperate and you do desperate things.
The level at which we are consuming oil is not to sustain humanity, but to sustain economic growth to feed the capitalist greed of the few.
Carbon emissions are an existential problem.
Destiny saying what "just Stop Oil" is doing is stupid and the mater is complex is simply gaslighting the matter.
We don't have time to argue about feelings or what sort of protesting is acceptable and what is not.
We are all comfortable where we are and we will only do something once the annoyance overwhelms the comfort.
Centrists are yappers, more interested in current comfort than doing the right thing.
Also why are you interviewing Destiny???
Isn’t protesting about achieving a goal though? Appropriate vs inappropriate boils down to effective vs ineffective. Seems to me these types of protests are against company executive actions but taken out on uninvolved people
@@2DayDavid they have sprayed orange on private jets before as well and that still wasnt good enough for people. I think they should keep hammering that sort of stuff but they can't keep throwing all their members into police custody like that
We do have time. That's part of the point. Your neotoddler rant is wrong. I'm sorry, Daddy didn't stop to get you McDonald's, but big boys don't throw tantrums when they don't get what they want.
Shouting never convinced anybody. Unless the person wanted to prove that he/she is a jerk.
And no one is listening? $2 trillion is being invested in clean energy this year. Just exactly how much listening do you want? Stop using the internet you might just save a tree.
Enraging people only hurts your cause. You won't irritate and inconvenience people into agreeing with you.
If recognizing this obvious truth is "centrism," color me a "centrist."
Destiny says that the stop oil protests are aiming towards a broad and complicated issue. Couldn't be more wrong. The protest always aim towards specific policies
Okay, let's say we stop using oil today. You're okay with the millions dead from that?
@@ColdfFlareThat assumes death is the only alternative. Transitioning resource use is the goal, not instant change to maximize death.
@@MrMusashiMusashi The problem with transitioning from oil isn’t just fuel but also all the by products we use in every facet of society. I have to have a biologic infused and by products exist in the saline bags, tubing and even medicines. When people transitioned from horse/mules to the automobile there wasn’t a slow transition and it created upheaval for those who raised horses and mules for a living, those who built carriages, those who manufactured saddles etc. Transitioning from oil will cause a greater upheaval and create new problems such as how to satisfy power consumption for EVs. My husband works for the largest power supplier in the South and more than half of their power supply comes from coal and about 30% from nuclear. And that supposes that governments actually implement legit climate control changes within large scale industries across the board which is unrealistic if those changes interfere with their profit margins. I’m not saying switching to an alternative in the future is inherently bad to prevent deadlier storms and famines but reality unfortunately suggests there will be sacrifices in order to do so. This is the definition of an existential crisis.
Your message might be true or important, but if you come off as a jerk while saying it, everybody will perceive you (and your message) as a jerk.
JSO are being jerks. Stop being jerks?
Says it’s really dumb, the proceeds to say it has a place in society for things that they think doesn’t have the level of visibility. That is exactly their point🤪
Climate change dosent have much visibility in society???
fym "that's exactly their point"?? climate change is one the most talked about issues, literally everywhere. To do something about it is hard because it's a super complicated issue
That's why he said it! Do you think those statements are contradictory?
Except they're wrong.
There's no such thing as 'Raising visibility' about Climate Change, because outside of the absolute lowest level of totally disconnected and disengaged citizens (Who won't watch the news to hear about the protest anyway) there is no such thing as an adult human being in an industrialized western country who has not heard about climate change.
Climate change is and has been talked about extensively in schools and in politics, even before these pretentious activist groups were formed. Your point about it not having enough visibility is not applicable here, at least not in europe where Just Stop Oil is operating.
If they want change so bad they should be protesting in places like China, Iran and Russia, but they won't because they themselves don't think the situation is literal life and death and would rather do this for their own amusement by annoying other citizens.
The same groups who do these demonstrations against oil are almost always the same people who are against nuclear energy. Might not be the case for stop oil but it has historically been the case.
Don t debate do something
people have died because they couldnt get to the hospital in time
Citation needed
@@lennmusicman look it up. Feeling guilty, are you?
@@lennmusicman but even if I was making it up, it is a reality that if you stop traffic, there's people in need of help that you are stalling. Giving birth, opportunity of a lifetime... and so many others. But hey, whatever we do to others ends up coming back to bite us, even if we had good intentions. So 30 years from now when you need to get some place and you're stopped, remember to cheer and not get angry
@@random_bit it's the only infrastructure we have available. But what would be a better infrastructure while you're at it? And those infrastructures are not counting on criminal activity.
Helicopters cost money and not all are available at all times.
That hospital wasn't of real merit. Who cares? Still, the protesters were the ones who caused the death.
Shifting blame doesn't remove your actions.
But you'll find a way to not feel bad that your tantrum had negative outcomes.
Thank God, God is real and everyone will pay for their actions, even if they somehow can rationalize it. Have fun
@@random_bit having this discussion is like a robber blaming the victim for having something of value. Eww... 🤢 🤮
Destiny’s argument that protesters shouldn’t protest about complex topics is disingenuous at best and completely absurd at worst.
Environmental groups, and all world governments, have clear ideas about what action is needed, and though there are unanswered questions this is not the topic of protest. I wonder what issue is sufficiently black and white to this man to be worth protesting? I'm sure when we have groups that are protesting for the right of newborn children to not have the eyes cut out of their heads Destiny will be on the streets.
They may have clear ideas, but that in no way means that their ideas are either sensible, warranted, workable or even address the problem. Stop oil for example is a bunch of lunatics and their ideas are idiotic.
I'm still waiting for these groups to tell the world what their strategy is beyond chanting "Just stop oil!" like it's such a simple solution...
That wasn't his argument at all... It's wild how you can watch this and come away thinking that is a remotely accurate summary of what he said.
@@colamity_5000
His argument is essentially, it’s complicated so I don’t understand why they’re doing it, what specifically are they aiming to achieve?
Is it right for people to protest in ways that affect other people (he also conflates the JSO movement with Covid mandate protests in Canada which is completely unfair)?
We don’t live in an authoritarian government and therefore we have no right to protest because our democracy is perfectly representative of the will of the people (this argument is so stupid it also seems dishonest)?
I think destiny doesn’t fully grasp climate change and its implications and is confused by protests in the spirit of JSO. He talks a lot about solar panels and I genuinely believe that’s indicative of the extent of his understanding.
@@maximtcaciuc2904 The more you read about and around these topics, the more you realise the solutions are simple and in many cases well defined but there is no political impetus or courage to enact them. If you spent no time at all thinking about an alternative way of living I understand how people can see them and think ‘but we use oil for everything?’ but I expect more of politicians and long term strategies.
I'd say not understanding the difference between "woman" and "female" and thinking "adult human female" is a tautology is "pretty dumb", but hey I'm just a nobody.
guys genocide is so complicated , these college students have no idea how complicated it is to send weapons to netenyahu :((
Aaaand proving his point...
@@jamez2918 it's so complicated bro to ask your president not to send weapons used to kill children :(
So dumb
except Israel isn't committing a genocide :3
Have you heard of Hamas?
Economic divestment from any entity committing a genocide isn't complicated and actually IS a concrete actionable step. It's literally a step in a pathway of pressure to end the genocide. Destiny is too smart to make an argument THIS stupid.
@zeroclout6306 bro it's so complicated you have no idea
@@zeroclout6306 also destiny is not smart
@@jnnyg7101 (destiny is not smart) that may or may not be true but I think it still stands that even a dumbass is smart enough to make a better argument. ;P
@zeroclout6306 honestly at a certain stage it looks malicious
@@jnnyg7101 I definitely think it's motivated reasoning. Destiny sees himself as fundamentally aligned with the neoliberal status quo. He sees it as his job to defend it, uphold it, strengthen it. Sometimes (rarely) that means protecting it from itself by critiquing what he sees as it's excesses but normally that just means running interference for it.
I don't get it. Why does anyone think it's meaningful to hear Destiny's opinion on things? What are his qualifications besides being a notable gamer?
He's rhetorically very effective and aggressive in a way that isn't seen on the left. Helps too that he actually reads up on everything he talks about, which evidently is enough to put pressure on the pundits he talks to.
He researches a wide variety of topics more than almost any talking head out there. About as informed of a person as you could really be.
Wait. Who are you?
Why'd you make this post and didn't include why we should care what you have to say?
@@mindlander
I'm a nobody asking a reasonable question.
Alex trying desperately to not engage with Destiny's braindead Israeli-Palestinian conflict takes 💀
Destiny undoubtedly knows a lot more about that conflict than Alex.
Oil will get rid of itself in due time. It's a finite resource that'll only get more expensive and renewable energy will only get cheaper. Money talks.
The point is to make sure that it doesn't get rid of us alongside.
@@dmitrishostakovich3156 For sure. We should still be doing everything we can to reduce emissions. I'm just saying that it's becoming financially incentivized to do so as clean energy gets cheaper than fossil fuels.
@@stevensiwinski Even when that becomes the case, the earth will have warmed up due to our CO2 emmisions to such a degree that life on earth will be miserable for a lot of people.
@@stevensiwinski It's the main reason people talk a lot on the topic of climate change, as it directly correlates on the matter of energy production.
It's actively not as simple as that, as for a very big chunk of people clean energy does not include nuclear, leaving only solar and wind (hydro and geo are basically maxed everywhere), which are not constant meaning they need something stable and constantly producing... which is going to be fossil fuels if Nuclear is not present.
This is why Oil companies fund every Green political party. We have Germany and Austria as a perfect example for that
As a general statement, renewable sources of energy are more incentivized than ever. There are a lot of funds and basically every big western country has billions of funds for them, which however won't ever be enough on its own, because intrinsically fossil fuels are necessary to compensate for the dips in energy production that wind and solar have (again, if you don't have nuclear in the mix)
That is like saying that eventually War will stop because we will run out of Humans when we are all dead from the Nuclear fallout.
The point of Just Stop Oil is that we don't have the time or the luxury to wait. Emissions needed to stop yesterday.
Destiny has this unique way to make me feel embarrassed when I agree with him. Never has someone I agree with so much make me so deeply wish I didn't.
God I hate Destiny. Sorry sorry, last Destiny hatepost for today.
Why would you spend so much time on Minecraft mimicking reality and then argue on your phone about your reasoning? You build your home, but your home is not external. Ask any real mountaineer, not a Mt Everest tourist. If only you had a major goal. Oh, you do Mars. God, the university is so boring. So you play Minecraft. I wonder where birds sleep and whales need to breathe. He gets his cash from cyberspace but still thinks he flushes his toilet with bottled water.
u ok bro?
@@Nullify011 No, I am listening to idiots.
despite my general annoyance with destiny due to seeming like a psudo-intellectual, he definitely seems to have a grounded opinion on this topic, I do agree quite heavily with him that this is such a complex topic that isn't that easy