282

'I’m here for my grandchildren': Two pensioners storm Wimbledon court to demand climate action (www.euronews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by sabbah@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Saint@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago

The idea of pensioners storming anything is hilarious. I'm glad to see members of that generation speaking up.

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Beats them speaking up about how they could afford property so why can't the younger generations

[+] Fantomas@lemmy.world -30 points 1 year ago

No. They're there to support they own sense of moral virtue and righteousness. They've done far more harm for climate activism than good. Now climate activism is seen as some sort of annoying lefty pastime instead of the absolute urgent matter that it is.

[-] abessman@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

Everyone knows protests are only effective if they don't inconvenience anyone. Ideally, climate activism should be conducted from the inside of one's closet. That's how real change happens!

[+] Methylman@lemmy.world -12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But why are they inconveniencing people who wanted to watch a tennis match and not idk... oil execs?

They get as much sympathy from me as I gave the truckers who protested outside my apartment building in Ottawa trying to convince me covid isnt real as if I had any decision making power

Tl,dr: pick your battles

[-] Happyjustbecause@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Wimbledon is a sporting event which has a posh reputation, many seats being traditionally reserved for the upper and ruling classes. For example, on the centre court they have a area called the 'Royal Box'. I would argue that there are probably quite a few oil execs in the audience.

[-] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.fmhy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah you never know what their research looked like. Maybe they checked and got a whole bench of oil execs in there.

Sounds like they knew what they were doing.

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

They weren't at centre court..

Arguably the most impactful figure for climate change is Greta and I can't think of one instance where she has angered working people to gain traction (maybe I'm wrong) and I believe she has done much more for the cause than getting on the news for causing a disturbance..

[-] Killakomodo@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

What??? I hear Americans hating her for "trying to get attention and stopping people from doing their jobs" all the time

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Based on evidence or feelings though lol

[-] Killakomodo@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

you like to bring up things that are beside the point, it does not matter if they have a problem with her for a real reason or a made up one, just that a lot of people discredit her because of her trying to bring attention to climate change. I was just responding to the "I can’t think of one instance where she has angered working people to gain traction"

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Fair enough - I definitely should have been more precise.

I'm trying to criticize protests that actively alienate people who agree with the cause.

What I'm trying to understand is whether Just Stop Oil wants to inconvenience the average joe or whether they are targeting those with the power to make a difference? Imo, at times it feels like the former more than the latter.

[-] Killakomodo@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If they were so dumb they saw a protest for something they agree with then stop because it's an annoyance then they did not give a shit about the issue in the first place.

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I never said stop supporting the cause -- but the way I'm feeling is other groups are more effective is all.

[-] abessman@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Visibility. Targeting widely broadcasted events increases exposure of the cause.
Disruption: Ever heard of bread and circuses? Disrupting the circus rouses the general public, and a roused public is preferable to complacent one even if they are roused against the protestors themselves.
Pressure: Eventually, 2. forces the ruling class to take action. Again, even if the action is to silence or persecute the protestors it still serves to highlight the issue.
Symbolism: Shit is not fine. Most people want to pretend it is, and this kind of event is part of the illusion. Pulling aside the curtain is the right thing to do.

[-] Legolution@vlemmy.net 4 points 1 year ago

Thank you for your beautiful and eloquent explanation of the rationale behind Direct Action. I will be cribbing it in future.

[-] Koordinator_O@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

The same strategy worked pretty well for reddit and the blackout. 😉 👍

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

2 and 3 sound about where we are and even you admit it turns people against the protests - I'm against oil execs but it genuinely feels like these muppets arent on my side

[-] Killakomodo@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

we get it you love oil execs

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Hate em - the whole reason I wish these protests targetted them more directly - burn their mansions and oil rigs down to the ground - then we shall tennis

[-] Killakomodo@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

how much house and oil rig burning ya doing may I ask? cus I feel the answer is none

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Haha not this time FBI agent

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Because this is an everybody problem.

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah I agree - so why do they keep picking on us who have no power and not bringing their message to places that could have more impact with less fallout from those who agree with their cause but not the way they are going about it

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Why do you think a protest at Wimbledon, where Britain's rich and powerful elite frequent, would not be a place that could have an impact?

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Sorry edited my original post

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I see that, but I still disagree. Protesting at Wimbledon isn't "picking on us." I couldn't afford to go to a match even if I lived in the UK. One day alone is £75. In a country where people can't afford food due to inflation. Protesting at Wimbledon is picking on them.

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Idk even know what to make of this, First they did pay that money for a ticket to get on the court and in doing so supported the causes they are protesting against. Second, my whole argument is why are they not supporting working people in the fight against corporate greed when the working people want to support them but don't see the value in merely causing a disturbance.

It's not like others in the exact same movement haven't figured out blocking roads and marches in the street ARE effective ways of putting the message out there - heck that's exactly what was on the morning news in a segment about the movement prior to a separate segment about the Wimbledon 'disturbances'..

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

What does paying money for a ticket have to do with it? They aren't protesting against Wimbledon. They're protesting against the elites who go there.

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Sorry I think I misunderstood and took what you were saying as anyone who CAN afford to go isn't working class.

I'll have to agree to disagree about whether these protests were as impactful as they could have been and let others reply.

[-] LostCause@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

I just want to say, I used to work at a fossil fuel company and one of the owner‘s family’s favourite sports to talk about was tennis, other two was golf and sailing.

Not sure if they also watched this one, but I can see a potential connection at least.

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I get that but it's starting to feel like these people would protest a kids birthday party if it meant the news would cover them .

I like seeing them on the streets doing their slow walks and getting in the way of corporations daily business but I can't help but feel some of their actions are starting to alienate would-be supporters

[-] LostCause@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I get that frustration as well that you express, since it disrupted something you enjoy and that isn‘t pleasant. However, as the inaction by those in power mounts, so do the frustrations of otherwise powerless protesters and that is something happening regardless of any negative counter reactions they may also provoke.

Already people have set themselves on fire in front of government buildings in the US for example and even that isn‘t yet the height of escalations that people can go to trying to get themselves to be heard. You can probably see why, as the climate reports we do hear get increasingly dark and various people and ecosystems on the planet experience negative effects.

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah - I guess it also feels like everyone knows something needs to be done by now but clearly if everyone actually did feel that way (I would hope at least) something would be done

[-] RockyBockySocky@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Remember that you are part of everyone :)

Go vegan, stop driving if you can, avoid planes, and so on.

[-] chillhelm@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Inconveniencing oil execs achieves absolutely nothing. You will never change someone's opinion whose livelyhood depends on holding that opinion. The climate crisis will not be confronted by oil execs and any meaningful measures will not have their support. Protesting them is a waste of time.

The only way to achieve anything is to increase the immediate right-now cost of doing nothing over the cost of doing something. The cost in annoyance, money, time and for the people that can be persuaded, ie. the general public.

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Ok - so one could say a 'goal' per se is decreasing attendance at events like this with the hope that it causes a change ? I can get behind that and believe that's a rational reason to protest.

If all that's true then my only real complaint is Just Stop Oil isn't getting THAT message across effectively

[-] sudo@lemmy.fmhy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're really missing the point. Nobody would say "the 'goal' per se is decreasing attendance to events like this".

They did exactly what they set out to do. Make a public spectacle that people write news stories on and then the public talks about it. Normalizing discourses of these issues and drawing more attention and support to addressing them.

People who are already of the corporate lapdog mindset that any inconvenience to them about social, political, and environmental issues should just go away won't have their minds changed. But nobody wants to change their minds, they understand these people won't change.

But young people especially will be drawn to support causes and invoke change when they are constantly reminded that their future is being destroyed around them, instead of just buying into distractions and ignoring it all.

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Make a public spectacle that people write news stories on and then the public talks about it.

See this is where I disagree.. if all they want is publicity then start a website or buy ads on tv.

If they want to make a difference then take a page from the indigenous groups blocking logging roads and railroad tracks across Canada when necessary

[-] RockyBockySocky@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Staying silent and doing nothing is gonna help how?

This is generating conversation on the topic, which is good.

Protest disrupts, that's the point.

[-] Ni@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is the problem, people have been quietly talking about this issue and trying to convince people for decades. Barely anything has happened. Protest is supposed to be inconvenient. Not sure whether this type to protest works, but the quiet, passive way certainly doesn't.

[-] RockyBockySocky@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah all the experts have been sounding every alarm for decades, the peaceful and "proper" way have been proven to not work, no one cares to listen.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The “experts” have been predicting the demise of civilization many times. And they were wrong.

[-] e-ratic@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also worth pointing out the demand isn't to dissolve the oil and gas industry over night - but to suspend all new licensing and expansion of the industry which in this case... is 1) something the UK should be doing anyway to meet their climate commitments and 2) not that radical or unreasonable

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Who is doing nothing? I would love to do nothing for even a week. People are working their asses off.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023

282 points (98.0% liked)

World News

38492 readers

3125 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.