Thanks, got that part. I meant more like, why do you say that? Because lacking power the activists are resorting to spraying monuments?

Without the lab coat they look like a regular person, sort of ruins the whole fantasy tbh.

Anything that I do to …

But I never suggested anything so extreme, now did I? I argued that one harmless act they did was justified given the context of who they did it to, not that absolutely anything they do would be justified.

… aren’t going to change the world.

No one has ever claimed they and the stuff they’ve done is all it takes to solve these issues. They are a group that is part of a movement, and what they are doing is part of the work that is needed to bring about change.

You can’t just look at the acts, you need to look at their effects. In a democracy, you need to raise awareness and pressure representatives to bring about change. Which is what they’re doing by spray painting private jets and other vandalism they did.

You need BILLIONS of people on board …

I don’t know why you think that. Do you think countries held referendums before deciding to shift to more renewables, pass green taxes, etc.? They haven’t, and obviously they won’t.

Oh I didn’t notice that.

Took a quick look at Reddit and it’s more encouraging. Some posts have a fair number of comments about private jet emissions, others posts didn’t have a single one about it.

Totally off-topic but why is the doctor topless.

I wrote that badly. I wanted to say that this sort of activism is valuable because it starts conversations like this. Which educates people, raising awareness.

others than the people who already are motivated.

We were all clueless about this at one time. Conversations like this educate people, I think it’s obvious a lot more people will be upset with the emissions of private jets after this, than before the group vandalized.

I’m actually taking concrete action … rather than pissing off a bunch of people

Yes and this is an example of a justified campaign for some systemic change, something quite different from what you’re doing. I’m sure you’ll agree that once it is them causing a huge amount of damage, inconveniencing them is ok if it gets a message to them, and gets people talking about a non-proliferation treaty and the harms of private jets?

whose support I really need for my cause

I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. But they won’t be drawing up new laws. And we can’t rely on their good will seeing all the cases of companies focusing on their bottom line while knowingly harming people and the environment.

Can you explain what you mean by impotence here?

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Fom the article:

A single flight in a private jet can easily emit as much carbon dioxide as the average annual carbon footprint for an EU citizen – 8.2 tonnes

Oxfam:

The richest 10 percent accounted for over half (52 percent) of the emissions added to the atmosphere between 1990 and 2015. The richest one percent were responsible for 15 percent of emissions during this time – more than all the citizens of the EU and more than twice that of the poorest half of humanity (7 percent).

I think what you built is legitimately cool but your efforts are erased many times over by a single flight these people take. I think thats enough to suggest you shouldnt empathise with the rich being given an inconvenient message, not that it was meant to change their minds, its to raise awareness in us, the general populace.

Also, we need systemic change, not just individual effort. We will have energy needs irrespective of how efficient we make things, and political pressure is how we will force away from fossil fuels.

Forget “30 or 13”, the kid should be posted on “90 or 9”.

I hear the whispers of !bandnames@lemmy.world call me, do you?

Nigel Farage

AI generated images didnt exist back then, Im not sure how it couldnt be real.

Jokes necessarily often leave behind details to work.

Here the whole joke is pointing out similarities we see are forced.

And besides, it’s obvious the author was intentionally being “wrong”, otherwise we’d be suggesting the author assumed the thought-experiment was monkeys who knew language, intentionally typing out great works. That’s a pretty useless situation to make up, it doesn’t suggest anything interesting.

You’re right, but it isnt trying to actually argue that, its a joke.

It would be one long post if we included weird things from all the fundamentalists. Also its called a nikab.