Many people have a preference for civility politics. They prefer negative peace over a positive justice. They have similar reactions when vegan animal rights activists point out things that trigger their cognitive dissonance.

Thankfully, their pissing and moaning about these groups still bring more attention to these urgent issues than quietly begging for justice ever has, so even if they don't like it, these kinds of stunts are still effective.

Protests are meant to disrupt, some people just dont seem to get it.

Simple. People don’t like the status quo to be disrupted until they’re forced into change.

Most people get their opinions from the people around them, and the media they consume. If the media talked about them in a better light, it would change people's opinions on them. People also hate the idea of being mildly inconvenienced, especially since most of the progress we've had from technology has been about improving convenience.

Stopping the people trying to prevent the biosphere from collapsing, now that's radical.

I don't boo them. But their message is equivalent to "let's lose over 90% of Earth's population over a couple of years" which isn't too popular for some strange reason.

A better message would be "let's use all what's left of fossil energy to build out renewable energy infrastructure and downscale our lifestyles radically, as the time is short". While still losing a lot of people, but that part is not said aloud.

Mahbe this is fair, maybe it isn't, but the general impression most people have of them and groups like them is that it's mostly quite comfortable, upper middle class people causing pointless disruption in ways that primarily impact the ordinary working Joe.

I'm almost certain this was extinction rebellion rather than just stop oil, but think of the protests to block motorways in England or disrupt train travel.

What did that achieve? Made some people late for work. Is that radical or effective? No, and it's annoying.

Or when you think of just stop oil specifically, you might think of someone throwing soup on a painting or orange powder on a snooker table.

What did that achieve? Again, annoyance for your ordinary working stiff who might have saved up quite a bit of money to travel to a fancy museum or bought a ticket to a snooker game.

Is that radical or effective? No, and it's annoying.

The style of protest is largely ineffective, isn't radical, and mostly just annoys the working class.

Maybe if they started committing some genuinely radical acts, like executing oil executives for example, it might be different.

Right now it just looks to most ordinary people like pointless annoyance by a bunch of wankers.

Edit: Just to be clear, and I hope this doesn't break any rules, I'm pro executing oil executives and anti pointless shit like holding up tube stations or vandalising art

It probably doesn't help that they have an obvious conflict of interest: https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/10/21/getty-oil-heiress-funds-climate-crisis-activism-just-stop-oil

So just stop oil then. Who are they asking to "just stop oil"? The people getting rich from it? They're not gonna stop because you ask nicely. You're gonna have to make them.

These people don't respond to public pressure. They only understand that the line is going up. If you want the line to go down, you're going to have to increase costs. These industries have a lot of very expensive poorly guarded infrastructure so it really isn't that hard to increase costs.

I'm sure most people know that, so again, why don't you just stop oil then. I'm adverse to long prison sentences so if you're so passionate for the cause, go nuts.

But they won't. They'll protest and make a fuss and then drive home in their cars like the rest of us. And that's pretty annoying.

I think people don't like hassle, even if it's worth it or even beneficial to them.

Easy, because it reminds me that I’m not doing enough against climate change.

Never heard of these guys. If you're going against industry, you're going to lose.