If you ever wanted to read about fake druids vs. environmental activists, now’s your chance.

  • fluxion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    A better way to propose your question is: out of all the millions of people on Earth who hear about these activities, will literally 0 of them take any meaningful action against climate change?

    The likelihood of that quite small, suggesting a non-zero value. That non-zero value is likely to be smaller than the damages of water-washable paint.

    I’m not advocating for anyone here, but I think that’s the calculus OP was suggesting, and it makes perfect sense to me.

    If eye-rolling and annoyance produced greenhouse gases, then it might be a different story.

    • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m not sure I follow. You’re suggesting that >0 people take meaningful action as a result of hearing about this protest. I’m saying that >0 people take fewer meaningful actions as a result, and >0 probably turn away from your cause when they hear about stupid shit like this. So for every one convert in the right direction, there are some in the other direction. Whether or not the two balance is certainly up for debate, and which side you prefer to highlight at the expense of the other, depends on your preconceived opinion.

      Which really just reiterates that this kind of nonsense is a net negative, because the people who respond positively to it were already converts in the first place.