admiralteal

You mean like… verifying it is a legitimate request from law enforcement? That kind of security hoop? Ensuring there is a warrant or subpoena? Ensuring proper security in transmitting the sensitive personal information?

Civil rights matter more than making cops’ jobs easy.

I see no problem whatsoever with having frustrating levels of obtuse security required before complying with a request from law enforcement.

There is no downside.

It is an absolute privacy nightmare. Nothing should be asking for your identity that doesn’t have a DAMN good reason to be asking for your identity.

Age verification is not a damn good reason. Especially since any number of free VPNs can circumventing it with just a few clicks.

So long as it does so quietly and without disturbing the neighbors, he’s fine with it.

It’s not really true, see: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/22/just-stop-oil-van-gogh-national-gallery-aileen-getty

This is one donor, not “the person behind”. The family made a lot of money on oil and has since entirely divested. The “heiress” in question is on the record saying she believes climate change threatens all of civilization and so she wants to put her fortune – especially given that a lot of it came from oil – to use stopping fossil fuels.

It’s basically EXACTLY what a sane person with a functional moral compass should do in that position, but it’s used as attack and slander regardless. Threads like this you ALWAYS see the right-wing talking points parroted faithfully by people who are either too gullible to do basic fact-checking or else are flatly disingenuous and manipulative.

They would simply get arrested at the first threat because that’s already illegal and people like you, who dislike protest, are in charge of the levers of law enforcement. Your theoretical protest wouldn’t even happen.

I like the way you shifted from gas stations to car dealerships when you realized that your first attempt really was the same thing.

And now you’re okay with vandalism and threats of property crime, but making some people a little late to work oh that’s unacceptable. So long as the protest has no effect on you personally you won’t ban it. Thanks.

He wants them to do something that doesn’t work because he wants to be able to ignore it. He doesn’t like the aesthetics of social protests and doesn’t understand the history of Civil Disobedience movements.

That’s all there is to it.

And how is picketing roads for cars any different than that?

It’s fucking not and you know it. You just don’t like protests.

Ah, more ways you aren’t allowed to protest to add to the list.

1. You aren’t allowed to protest unless the protest only affects the Officially Designated List (ODL) of “influencers”, politicians, or industries. Other people affected by protests is unacceptable.
2. Democratic action cannot be a goal of protest. Protest must only be targeted to inconvenience bad guys (see ODL) and nothing else.
3. Protests must not cause spectacle. The must be subdued, quiet, and easily ignored.
4. Protestors must always be of a positive nature; only protests that have specific solutions and plans of actions are allowed. Protesting against things is unacceptable, you must only protest FOR things.
5. Protest that involves property crime must be entirely shut down, permanently, with the entire organization tarred and feathered. ESPECIALLY if the property crime was throwing soup at a museum painting that was fully-sealed behind glass and totally protected. Protecting fine art matters more than keeping our civilization running.

Let me know if you’ve got more Unacceptable Protest Options (UPOs). I’ll maintain the list for you.

No, that’s basically misinformation.

There’s a major donor who’s the daughter of a family who’s previous generation made money on fossil fuels and has since divested and wants to distance themselves. Based on the fact that it is now clear how utterly destructive fossil fuels are.

Conservatives / climate deniers use some parts of this fact as part of a campaign to discredit the organization and keep the media narrative around these protests on “oh, this style of protest does not match my aesthetics so it must be bad” instead of “the climate is on fire and the perpetrators are getting rich doing it and we should ALL be in the streets making noise and inconveniencing people until something is done.”

Or you could say these protestors are regularly getting in headlines, showing that there’s an escalating culture of absolute rejection of social mores so long as major, vital changes don’t happen. Creating serious problems for bureaucrats and elected officials that forces a response that often makes those officials and bureaucrats look like assholes.

The protests are factually inconveniencing and causing problems for people that have the influence to get policy changed, at least so long as democracy is functional. You aren’t going to be able to protest an oil magnate. They are not accessible for protest.

Your thesis is that people will vote against climate protestors just because they were late getting to work one day. If that’s correct, we may as well get out the Flavor-Aid because this world’s beyond saving. Everyone needs to be reminded and thinking about this crisis. Every day. It needs to be front and center. Time is running out. We have the solutions needed to avoid catastrophe, but too many are simply not aware and thinking about how terrible the danger is and need daily reminding.

We seem to be forgetting that protests once involved burning down neighborhoods and executing rulers. Which really is what we should be doing, given the enormity of the problem. This is a more civil compromise. Don’t buy into the media powers that want to turn you against anyone expressing discontent.

If the Earth Day protests happened today, the media narrative around them would be “Look at all these fuckers, on the streets, stopping me from getting to the gas station to buy a Slim Jim!” It’s fucked. The attitude is fucked.

So protesting is only ever acceptable if the only people impacted by the protests are precisely the offenders being protested. If anyone else is affected, protestors should go to jail for their heinous crime of protest. If the very people the protest target make themselves inaccessible to protesters, then protest is not allowed.

An old municipal right of way that got turned into private property somehow.

People living in those houses should definitely be attempting adverse possession on it.

I think you mean WASN’T threadiverse already a term.

Yes, it used to be. Soon, it won’t be.

They knew they would get this response, too. How could they not?

Israel can’t ignore the hostages and rest on its laurels. There’s no option to not respond when your citizens have been violently seized, held captive, tortured, maimed, raped. And Hamas knows their own defensive strategy relies heavily on using Palestinians as human shields, which will cause that inevitable response to be absolutely horrific. Hamas was relying on these horrors – though I think perhaps the response has been a LOT sharper than any anticipated.

I think a lot of critics of the war, oddly, focus too much on what has happened after October 7th. When really we should be looking at what led up to it. And that’s not to say that Hamas was justified because that level of depraved violence never is. But it IS to say that the Bibi administration was utterly complicit and that the fuse on this powder keg was lit long ago and no one with the power to do so seems to have made an effort to extinguish it. On October 6th, the whole world knew that the Bibi administration was made up of a corrupt, lunatic fringe of far-right religious fundamentalists bent on the total destruction of Palestine and a total takeover of Israel. On October 8th, the protests against Netanyahu for doing things like sending suitcases of money to Hamas or deleting the oversight of their Supreme Court were replaced with a completely different narrative.

I think both Hamas and Bibi’s team thought they would politically benefit from this kind of violence. I think both are finding out they terribly misjudged things, though I am sure none will admit it. And the people – mostly Palestinians, but also no doubt some Israelis – are suffering terribly as a result of these two intractable right-wing theocratic organizations going about their religious war.

It is worth being wary of any pledges that list net zero as the end line.

Net zero is actually not good enough right now. It’s almost certainly necessary to get to negative emissions for at least some period of time to undo damage. Which means it’s not a goal of getting to carbon neutral, the goal is to eliminate as many carbon emissions as we can.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that net zero is a very achievable goal even on a fairly short timeline. That all of the promises so many conservatives have about the disastrous effects it would have on the economy to pursue it are complete nonsense, and so we need to just commit and go for it. So now a lot of the biggest deniers and evildoers, are trying to subtly push for net zero being the final goal post instead of just another mile marker. It is a sort of thought-ending cliche, and it’s very clever.

Also, Spotify is actively trying to ruin and fragment podcasts by running exclusive content. Fuck them with a rusty rake for trying to ruin one of the last mass interoperable platforms with their walled garden horse shit. Fuck them so much.

Don’t use Spotify. Even if they fix the app and make it good, don’t use it. They’re evil little fuckers. Use literally any other podcast app.

Intuit and H&R Block are the reason we have this depraved, inhumane, anti-consumer tax system. They’ve created the laws that make it necessary to use tax prep software. They should not be rewarded for this by getting business for that very tax prep software. Everyone should say no to TurboTax.

irs.gov/freefile

There are always a bunch of perfectly good competitors to them listed. Use those competitors. For most people it’s totally free.

Grade A tankie shit is taking advice on how to respect religious freedom and human rights from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Tunisia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.