Even bad press is still press? I don’t have an opinion on Stonehenge yet; I’m pretty sure the art they “defaced” was only the protective casing; and I haven’t researched them enough to form a true opinion of my own
But now I’m curious as to whether (or not) “I think” their motives are “ignorant” or somehow “nefarious” at times. I’ve seen them in the news for a while now, and I haven’t always agreed with their course of action… sometimes I believe it to be too impulsive. But they’re still doing it. They’ve forced a discussion that keeps the issue in the forefront, and now it has me wanting to look-into their situation more. And I do believe-in what they’re advocating, even if I’m not sure it’s the “correct” way to do it
Yet here we are, talking about it. “There’s no such thing as ‘Bad Press’”, I guess? Are they right?.. maybe. Are they detracting from the plight?.. also, maybe. Am I sure of my opinion of their protests?.. no, not really. Seems like something I’ll have to read more about.
So maybe, mission accomplished (in-progress)? Idk, but I see the merit regardless of their actions
Yet here we are, talking about it. “There’s no such thing as ‘Bad Press’”, I guess? Are they right?.. maybe. Are they detracting from the plight?.. also, maybe. Am I sure of my opinion of their protests?.. no, not really.
Right, but we are talking about it knowing the consequences of not enacting changes. In the US fox news is watched by something like 40% of active voters. Meaning a significant portion of voters actively distrust news about climate change, another significant portion do not think about it on a day to day basis.
Giving the news network ammunition like this only further entrenches these audiences in anti climate change reactions.
Seems like something I’ll have to read more about.
Would knowing that this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress that lives in a 33m dollar home affect your opinion?
I’ve seen you mention the oil heiress thing a couple of times. The heiress in question is Aileen Getty. She helped found the Climate Emergency Fund which is basically used to fund nonviolent climate protests like these.
The emergency climate fund also supported the Dutch protests against the fossil fuel industry that ended with the Dutch government proceeding with a plan to end fossil fuel subsidies.
The emergency climate fund has had some success against the fossil fuel industry, so I don’t think there is any evidence that this thing is a psyop to get public opinion to be against climate protesters.
It’s very possible that Aileen Getty actually feels bad about how her family gained its fortune, and she is trying to reverse the damage by donating to these causes. If this was a fossil fuel industry psyop, they would do a much better job at hiding who was funding it.
Even bad press is still press? I don’t have an opinion on Stonehenge yet; I’m pretty sure the art they “defaced” was only the protective casing; and I haven’t researched them enough to form a true opinion of my own
But now I’m curious as to whether (or not) “I think” their motives are “ignorant” or somehow “nefarious” at times. I’ve seen them in the news for a while now, and I haven’t always agreed with their course of action… sometimes I believe it to be too impulsive. But they’re still doing it. They’ve forced a discussion that keeps the issue in the forefront, and now it has me wanting to look-into their situation more. And I do believe-in what they’re advocating, even if I’m not sure it’s the “correct” way to do it
Yet here we are, talking about it. “There’s no such thing as ‘Bad Press’”, I guess? Are they right?.. maybe. Are they detracting from the plight?.. also, maybe. Am I sure of my opinion of their protests?.. no, not really. Seems like something I’ll have to read more about.
So maybe, mission accomplished (in-progress)? Idk, but I see the merit regardless of their actions
Stonehenge wasn’t harmed. The pigment is water soluble, it washes off with the rain. No chemical damage.
Right, but we are talking about it knowing the consequences of not enacting changes. In the US fox news is watched by something like 40% of active voters. Meaning a significant portion of voters actively distrust news about climate change, another significant portion do not think about it on a day to day basis.
Giving the news network ammunition like this only further entrenches these audiences in anti climate change reactions.
Would knowing that this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress that lives in a 33m dollar home affect your opinion?
I’ve seen you mention the oil heiress thing a couple of times. The heiress in question is Aileen Getty. She helped found the Climate Emergency Fund which is basically used to fund nonviolent climate protests like these.
The emergency climate fund also supported the Dutch protests against the fossil fuel industry that ended with the Dutch government proceeding with a plan to end fossil fuel subsidies.
The emergency climate fund has had some success against the fossil fuel industry, so I don’t think there is any evidence that this thing is a psyop to get public opinion to be against climate protesters.
It’s very possible that Aileen Getty actually feels bad about how her family gained its fortune, and she is trying to reverse the damage by donating to these causes. If this was a fossil fuel industry psyop, they would do a much better job at hiding who was funding it.