It's a good movie, but like others have noted, this is not how you do it. 90% of blowing up a pipeline is community building, being able to get the gear you need and carry it out with a lot of people knowing and being able to trust that they won't rat you out. But it turns out when you have a community like that, well, you don't need to blow up the pipeline, you can just lobby the government.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm sure they're less worried about the "hows" of it all, than just the promotion of the idea in popular thought.

[–] dillekant@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 months ago

Yes, exactly this. The book by Andreas Malm had a review which read like "this book is less how to blow up a pipeline, and more why to blow up a pipeline", and the movie is working on a metaphorical level to argue the case. You're not meant to emulate it directly.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

when you have a community like that, well, you don't need to blow up the pipeline, you can just lobby the government.

I haven't seen the movie yet; in which country is it set?

[–] dillekant@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 months ago

USA.

[–] hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Lobbying is "begging for permission" from people who have been paid to not care. "Direct action gets the goods."

[–] dillekant@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Lobbying, protest, etc. These are effective. Money matters less than you think*. Often organising gets the job done.

The US is a weird case there, but in general this holds.

[–] hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 months ago

Well, lobbying in the US means "bribing" and if you're just going to talk to them without money in hand they don't give a fuck. Since the film is set in the US, that kind of matters. Lobbying against oil anywhere in the world is basically just ignored. Again, direct action gets the goods.