Cars affect them way more, so if anything JSO would prolly in the long term make things better for them.
the protesters were repeat offenders
Based.
the protesters said they are glad they broke the law
Based.
the protester who got the longest sentence was in contempt of court and got arrested again during the court case
Based.
the protestor who got the longest sentence was continually rude to the judge and constantly tried to create drama in the courtroom, generally a terrible idea.
Based. Being a judge prosecuting fucking climate protestors is the real crime.
the protester who got the longest sentence said he would commit more crimes, he would never stop, and he couldn’t wait to get out there and commit more crimes.
Unreal, I don’t even know the guy but have enormous respect for him. Thanks for sharing this.
Saying Based isn’t a counter argument. Please come up with some of your own opinions and demonstrate how you arrived at them or shut the hell up.
You’re as bad as the thugs, you let somebody else tell you what your opinion should be and you don’t actually know why they’re your opinions, because you’ve just absorbed them from the ether, and did not arrive at them on your own, so you just shout at people without any idea about why you’re angry at them. Grow up.
Idk what to say? Corporate terrorists who shit up our planet from oil execs to their political lackeys all deserve to be put to the sword. Someone bringing attention to that in a legal system that serves capitalist interests in such a brazen, dedicated fashion is a hero of mine.
This is my original opinion I’ve come to over many years from being a dedicated establishment defender concerned with “civility” and broadly unaware of the concept of negative peace that serves the purpose of denying justice to those affected, then to moderate “shit sucks but neither side is right” to now radicalized, and I know exactly why my opinion is that way - it is witnessing the collapse of this country in real time that got me to open my eyes to the fact things here are run by thieves who steal from us all tangibly and less so, from the landleeches who leech off labour when we have enough excess housing to house everyone right now, literally solving homelessness, to the oil execs who leech off our very planet - a planet that it’s very hard to argue does not belong to all of us, and when the system fails to account for this it is a failed system, and thus direct action outside of the justice system run by and for those same thieves is almost always justified - nay - morally required.
I have to agree with you. I’ve tried my best to get on board with how the system functions, the outcomes it produces and forgive its flaws but it just doesn’t reflect my values. Apart from the physical destruction its causing, tolerating a system which is working against you like that for long enough just crushes your spirit. Accepting that I oppose it is liberating.
I found it much easier to cope with the world when I acknowledged that the system isn’t broken, it’s working exactly as intended. Sounds cynical, but I have found a lot of comfort in solidarity with people who feel similarly, and that gives me more hope than I have felt in years.
I’ve heard others say that too. It definitely removes chaos and chance from equation. I recently heard a former Australian PM asked how to get power and he said that it’s just a case of being a small faction and capturing a mainstream political party. Somehow that made it click with me how things are up for grabs if you are willing to accept the system as it is and exploit it, rather than completely rejecting it.
Unfortunately the “you” in this case is generic, and plural. And most people, in the UK, even the progressive folks, as evidenced by ITT, are definitely so inclined.
Personal opinion isn’t relevant here, that’s what you do not sit here to understand.
The sentence they got was based on the things they did and the way they conducted themselves in the courtroom. You cannot complain that their sentences were too long without also accepting that they hold some responsibility for the length of their own sentences. Whether you believe that’s moral or not is utterly irrelevant.
Actually it’s the only thing that’s relevant. In your opinion legal = good and well-behaved=good, but not in mine.
If a system like ours denies change and justice, then it doesn’t deserve people cowtowing before it.
Real justice is about the why, and the broader context as much as it is about the what. A ransomware gang in Russia stealing from grandma is obviously not the same as a single mother stealing formula to feed her child. By your logic If the mother is upset and doesn’t think highly of the system, she gets a stricter sentence. Needless to say - this is absurd.
I feel like this is morality 101, no offense. I doubt you actually believe that context shouldn’t matter, but that’s how it comes off.
Needless to say, I think the sentencing should take into account not how you ‘conducted yourself’ but why you did what you did. I’ll agree that we disagree.
No it’s not my opinion. Your problem is that you think that everyone is fighting you, well they are not, we’re just pointing out that personal beliefs are not the same as legal truth. I just don’t like disingenuous people who seem to think that because you want something to be the case it actually is the case.
Whether I like the law or not or whether you like the law or not isn’t relevant. You can’t break the law and expect anything other than prison time and fines, just because you think you have some moral authority. It’s not my problem if you don’t like it.
Cars affect them way more, so if anything JSO would prolly in the long term make things better for them.
You can’t be serious. People purposely blocking a motorway that’s critical for emergency services are less at fault for blocking emergency services than a person in a car or bus in your eyes?
Based.
That’s not a legal defence.
Based.
Dunno why you replied to the same line twice, but see above.
the protesters said they are glad they broke the law
See above.
Based.
See above. And no, being in contempt of court isn’t based.
Based. Being a judge prosecuting fucking climate protestors is the real crime.
No it’s not based. It’s stupidity. Insulting the judge handling your trial is moronic.
And no, judges prosecuting people guilty of committing a crime, whether you believe the charge is worthy or not, isn’t a crime. It’s their job.
Unreal, I don’t even know the guy but have enormous respect for him. Thanks for sharing this.
Funny. I feel the opposite. I was sympathetic to him before I looked into the facts and saw how much of a moron he is. The disservice he’s doing to the climate debate is immense. I hope he has a good think about his actions while he’s in prison.
He literally said he wanted people in ambulances to die due to the traffic jam FFS.
“Breaking the law and getting arrested for it is literally 1984”
Do you even know what being in Contempt of Court is?
Do you think, for example, that not turning up to court shouldn’t go against you? Or purposely trying to derail the trial? Or defying court orders? Or disclosing details of an ongoing court case, risking the entire case being dismissed? We have laws for a reason.
I suppose you must love people like Tommy Robinson, who has on multiple occasions been charged with contempt of court? Is he “based”? Is it Orwellian to bring criminal charges to him?
I agree with Tommy Robinson being charged in contempt of court because I disagree with his views.
I disagree with JSO members being charged in contempt of court because I agree with their views.
Because the former’s views are racist vile shit, but the latter’s views are well intentioned calls for reform.
The two are in fact, not equal, and treating them as such, judging them only by how well they play the system we all know is designed to benefit the status quo is putting that system onto a pedestal of perfection and ignoring all nuance.
I agree with Tommy Robinson being charged in contempt of court because I disagree with his views.
That’s not how courts work, and it’s not how laws work. It shouldn’t be done based on feels.
I disagree with JSO members being charged in contempt of court because I agree with their views.
They explicitly said they would rather people in ambulances die than let them through. Do you agree with that?
Because the former’s views are racist vile shit, but the latter’s views are well intentioned calls for reform.
Killing people is fine?
The two are in fact, not equal, and treating them as such, judging them only by how well they play the system we all know is designed to benefit the status quo is putting that system onto a pedestal of perfection and ignoring all nuance.
You can’t just say “no the law shouldn’t apply to you because I like you”. That sounds like the way some fascist shithole would be run.
That’s not how courts work, and it’s not how laws work. It shouldn’t be done based on feels.
Fee-fees != Morality, context, nuance
They explicitly said they would rather people in ambulances die than let them through. Do you agree with that?
It’s a shitty situation. They are not being listened to, what are they supposed to do? Idk I’m not them I can’t unpack all that, but somehow I doubt they have genuine contempt for random people in ambulances.
Killing people is fine?
Depends. In self-defense? Yeah, absolutely. Are they Nazis? Yeah go for it man. Landlords? Geez wait for me! Oil execs? Wait wait, slow down, let me grab my S&W.
You can’t just say “no the law shouldn’t apply to you because I like you”. That sounds like the way some fascist shithole would be run.
Well we are in a fascist shithole and it’s not run like that so checkmate redditor.
The problem is that when you let only bad guys use hypocrisy, they win.
Christ. Imagine defending someone who says that they’d rather let people in ambulances die than let them through. Yikes. I can’t even comprehend being that hateful.
Depends. In self-defense? Yeah, absolutely. Are they Nazis? Yeah go for it man. Landlords? Geez wait for me! Oil execs? Wait wait, slow down, let me grab my S&W.
Nope. People in ambulances needing hospital treatment.
Well we are in a fascist shithole and it’s not run like that so checkmate redditor.
Yawn.
People being charged for crimes they’ve committed isn’t fascism.
The mother of the person who was jailed said it was wrong as it meant her son wouldn’t be able to attend a wedding in America, which was retweeted by JSO. Absolutely hilarious for two reasons:
they think they (because they’re wealthy posh twats) shouldn’t be interrupted or made late for things, yet they are happy to make others late for things (such as being rushed to fucking A&E)
they are fine with rich people getting flights, but not poor people
We’re done here. I don’t want to talk to someone who thinks leaving people to die needlessly in ambulances is a good thing. If that really is what gets your dick hard, you need help.
When I’m in a “don’t comprehend nuance” competition and my opponent is the average Trekkie. Bet you like discovery!
We’re done here.
Woah there we got a tough guy on the internet.
I don’t want to talk to someone who thinks leaving people to die needlessly in ambulances is a good thing.
And is this someone in the here with us right now?
Because you made up a strawman in your head. I never said it is a good thing to leave people to die in ambulances needlessly.
But all the most effective protests and riots in history have had their casualties, and yet brought us the quality of life we enjoy today. That’s not fee-fees, that’s historical fact.
There’s no need to get so worked up and upset that you must twist my words to make them easier to attack.
People being charged for crimes they’ve committed isn’t fascism.
Yeah if you strip away all context from an action nothing can be anything. The anti-protest law isn’t fascistic either, it’s just a bill to keep the peace.
The mother of the person who was jailed said it was wrong as it meant her son wouldn’t be able to attend a wedding in America, which was retweeted by JSO.
Yeah I’ll agree with you there. I don’t defend those cringelords as individuals, most anprims and other climatoids are absolute morons beyond all help.
My God you are utterly pathetic individual. You actually think that your personal opinion is the same as objective reality. Either you have an ego the size of a small continent or you don’t actually understand what you’re talking about.
I honestly suspect it to be the latter, your response to me was basically copy paste eco warrior bullshit. None of it has any real recognition of the challenges faced by changing, or any real desire to moderate or come to some kind of mutual agreement. All it is is pronouncements with your nose in the air firmly telling everybody how utterly scummy they are they don’t follow your belief structure.
I don’t actually really care that much about the climate and I’m pro-natural-exploitation so long as the spoils of it are shared evenly amongst the proletariat (present and future, so including some degree of preservation), but if some pathetic centrist system-defender wants to label me an eco-warrior I’ll wear it with pride.
challenges faced by changing
Aww, profits go down? What a shame. Degrowth would be such a bad thing what will I do without the AI crypto meta verse being made in 2 years :(
any real desire to moderate or come to some kind of mutual agreement.
A mutual agreement between a rapist and a victim of rape is not a compromise of a rapist being allowed to “rape a little bit” lmao it is an acknowledgment that one party is 100% right, and the other is absolutely fucking wrong.
All it is is pronouncements with your nose in the air firmly telling everybody how utterly scummy they are they don’t follow your belief structure.
I don’t really care if you don’t believe this shit, I think you should consider it, my zealous advocatry for one side I believe is right is not a moral condemnation of opposing and especially not more moderate-but-broadly-in-agreement individuals, it is a condemnation of the system.
The le evil socialists that comprise little more than half of Gen-Z in the UK aren’t out to get some slobby middle manager’s Toyota Camry, he’s just part of a system, they’re there for those who embezzled billions to actively enforce the system.
A mutual agreement between a rapist and a victim of rape is not a compromise
If you have to descend to erroneously equating the situation to rape then you’ve lost the argument. You cannot rely on an emotional response to an intellectual exercise it’s not only dishonest it’s also unhelpful.
The world is in the state it is in not because some evil person decided to be evil one day but because of a natural development of the human condition. We can’t all go back to living in caves that wouldn’t work, we can’t sustain the current population sitting around campfires and singing camping songs. So unless your advocating for mass genocide I don’t really understand what you want here.
I would prefer to live in the real world and be a realist, I want the world to improve, but I don’t believe that the way to improve it is to be an unmoving obstacle. Doing that is counterproductive to your own argument anyway because everyone will just get fed up with you and eventually ignore you.
The world is in the state it is in not because some evil person decided to be evil one day but because of a natural development of the human condition.
I somewhat agree, but it’s not so much a question of nature and the human condition as a question of material circumstances and class warfare.
We can’t all go back to living in caves that wouldn’t work, we can’t sustain the current population sitting around campfires and singing camping songs. So unless your advocating for mass genocide I don’t really understand what you want here.
Ah yes the two options boring cyberpunk dystopias and hunter-gatherer. No in-between. None at all. /s
would prefer to live in the real world and be a realist, I want the world to improve, but I don’t believe that the way to improve it is to be an unmoving obstacle
But you just said that you don’t even understand what kind of world people want these days. I’m all for being effective, but it doesn’t seem like you believe in the possibility of structural change we need.
Doing that is counterproductive to your own argument anyway because everyone will just get fed up with you and eventually ignore you.
Cars affect them way more, so if anything JSO would prolly in the long term make things better for them.
Based.
Based.
Based.
Based. Being a judge prosecuting fucking climate protestors is the real crime.
Unreal, I don’t even know the guy but have enormous respect for him. Thanks for sharing this.
Saying Based isn’t a counter argument. Please come up with some of your own opinions and demonstrate how you arrived at them or shut the hell up.
You’re as bad as the thugs, you let somebody else tell you what your opinion should be and you don’t actually know why they’re your opinions, because you’ve just absorbed them from the ether, and did not arrive at them on your own, so you just shout at people without any idea about why you’re angry at them. Grow up.
Idk what to say? Corporate terrorists who shit up our planet from oil execs to their political lackeys all deserve to be put to the sword. Someone bringing attention to that in a legal system that serves capitalist interests in such a brazen, dedicated fashion is a hero of mine.
This is my original opinion I’ve come to over many years from being a dedicated establishment defender concerned with “civility” and broadly unaware of the concept of negative peace that serves the purpose of denying justice to those affected, then to moderate “shit sucks but neither side is right” to now radicalized, and I know exactly why my opinion is that way - it is witnessing the collapse of this country in real time that got me to open my eyes to the fact things here are run by thieves who steal from us all tangibly and less so, from the landleeches who leech off labour when we have enough excess housing to house everyone right now, literally solving homelessness, to the oil execs who leech off our very planet - a planet that it’s very hard to argue does not belong to all of us, and when the system fails to account for this it is a failed system, and thus direct action outside of the justice system run by and for those same thieves is almost always justified - nay - morally required.
I have to agree with you. I’ve tried my best to get on board with how the system functions, the outcomes it produces and forgive its flaws but it just doesn’t reflect my values. Apart from the physical destruction its causing, tolerating a system which is working against you like that for long enough just crushes your spirit. Accepting that I oppose it is liberating.
I found it much easier to cope with the world when I acknowledged that the system isn’t broken, it’s working exactly as intended. Sounds cynical, but I have found a lot of comfort in solidarity with people who feel similarly, and that gives me more hope than I have felt in years.
I’ve heard others say that too. It definitely removes chaos and chance from equation. I recently heard a former Australian PM asked how to get power and he said that it’s just a case of being a small faction and capturing a mainstream political party. Somehow that made it click with me how things are up for grabs if you are willing to accept the system as it is and exploit it, rather than completely rejecting it.
To me it’s kind of the opposite. The realization that yes the system is rigged in this way only makes it seem more powerful and everlasting.
It’s only everlasting if you choose to be a scab and bend the knee.
Unfortunately the “you” in this case is generic, and plural. And most people, in the UK, even the progressive folks, as evidenced by ITT, are definitely so inclined.
Personal opinion isn’t relevant here, that’s what you do not sit here to understand.
The sentence they got was based on the things they did and the way they conducted themselves in the courtroom. You cannot complain that their sentences were too long without also accepting that they hold some responsibility for the length of their own sentences. Whether you believe that’s moral or not is utterly irrelevant.
Actually it’s the only thing that’s relevant. In your opinion legal = good and well-behaved=good, but not in mine.
If a system like ours denies change and justice, then it doesn’t deserve people cowtowing before it.
Real justice is about the why, and the broader context as much as it is about the what. A ransomware gang in Russia stealing from grandma is obviously not the same as a single mother stealing formula to feed her child. By your logic If the mother is upset and doesn’t think highly of the system, she gets a stricter sentence. Needless to say - this is absurd.
I feel like this is morality 101, no offense. I doubt you actually believe that context shouldn’t matter, but that’s how it comes off.
Needless to say, I think the sentencing should take into account not how you ‘conducted yourself’ but why you did what you did. I’ll agree that we disagree.
No it’s not my opinion. Your problem is that you think that everyone is fighting you, well they are not, we’re just pointing out that personal beliefs are not the same as legal truth. I just don’t like disingenuous people who seem to think that because you want something to be the case it actually is the case.
Whether I like the law or not or whether you like the law or not isn’t relevant. You can’t break the law and expect anything other than prison time and fines, just because you think you have some moral authority. It’s not my problem if you don’t like it.
You’re missing the point. Whether the punishment was fair based on the law isn’t the same as the punishment being fair period.
The law only applies to people I disagree with.
I am definitely a person who should be taken seriously
/s
Except I didn’t say that did I so that kind of defeats your little argument.
The law applies to everyone. You just don’t like the law which is different.
You can’t be serious. People purposely blocking a motorway that’s critical for emergency services are less at fault for blocking emergency services than a person in a car or bus in your eyes?
That’s not a legal defence.
Dunno why you replied to the same line twice, but see above.
See above.
See above. And no, being in contempt of court isn’t based.
No it’s not based. It’s stupidity. Insulting the judge handling your trial is moronic.
And no, judges prosecuting people guilty of committing a crime, whether you believe the charge is worthy or not, isn’t a crime. It’s their job.
Funny. I feel the opposite. I was sympathetic to him before I looked into the facts and saw how much of a moron he is. The disservice he’s doing to the climate debate is immense. I hope he has a good think about his actions while he’s in prison.
He literally said he wanted people in ambulances to die due to the traffic jam FFS.
1984
Do you even know what being in Contempt of Court is?
Do you think, for example, that not turning up to court shouldn’t go against you? Or purposely trying to derail the trial? Or defying court orders? Or disclosing details of an ongoing court case, risking the entire case being dismissed? We have laws for a reason.
I suppose you must love people like Tommy Robinson, who has on multiple occasions been charged with contempt of court? Is he “based”? Is it Orwellian to bring criminal charges to him?
You surely must be trolling.
I agree with Tommy Robinson being charged in contempt of court because I disagree with his views.
I disagree with JSO members being charged in contempt of court because I agree with their views.
Because the former’s views are racist vile shit, but the latter’s views are well intentioned calls for reform.
The two are in fact, not equal, and treating them as such, judging them only by how well they play the system we all know is designed to benefit the status quo is putting that system onto a pedestal of perfection and ignoring all nuance.
You literally just accused me of this and then you admit to actually it being your base belief structure. God you’re obnoxious.
Never accused you of this, that was another user.
That’s not how courts work, and it’s not how laws work. It shouldn’t be done based on feels.
They explicitly said they would rather people in ambulances die than let them through. Do you agree with that?
Killing people is fine?
You can’t just say “no the law shouldn’t apply to you because I like you”. That sounds like the way some fascist shithole would be run.
Fee-fees != Morality, context, nuance
It’s a shitty situation. They are not being listened to, what are they supposed to do? Idk I’m not them I can’t unpack all that, but somehow I doubt they have genuine contempt for random people in ambulances.
Depends. In self-defense? Yeah, absolutely. Are they Nazis? Yeah go for it man. Landlords? Geez wait for me! Oil execs? Wait wait, slow down, let me grab my S&W.
Well we are in a fascist shithole and it’s not run like that so checkmate redditor.
The problem is that when you let only bad guys use hypocrisy, they win.
It is fee-fees.
Christ. Imagine defending someone who says that they’d rather let people in ambulances die than let them through. Yikes. I can’t even comprehend being that hateful.
Nope. People in ambulances needing hospital treatment.
Yawn.
People being charged for crimes they’ve committed isn’t fascism.
The mother of the person who was jailed said it was wrong as it meant her son wouldn’t be able to attend a wedding in America, which was retweeted by JSO. Absolutely hilarious for two reasons:
they think they (because they’re wealthy posh twats) shouldn’t be interrupted or made late for things, yet they are happy to make others late for things (such as being rushed to fucking A&E)
they are fine with rich people getting flights, but not poor people
We’re done here. I don’t want to talk to someone who thinks leaving people to die needlessly in ambulances is a good thing. If that really is what gets your dick hard, you need help.
When I’m in a “don’t comprehend nuance” competition and my opponent is the average Trekkie. Bet you like discovery!
Woah there we got a tough guy on the internet.
And is this someone in the here with us right now?
Because you made up a strawman in your head. I never said it is a good thing to leave people to die in ambulances needlessly.
But all the most effective protests and riots in history have had their casualties, and yet brought us the quality of life we enjoy today. That’s not fee-fees, that’s historical fact.
There’s no need to get so worked up and upset that you must twist my words to make them easier to attack.
Yeah if you strip away all context from an action nothing can be anything. The anti-protest law isn’t fascistic either, it’s just a bill to keep the peace.
Yeah I’ll agree with you there. I don’t defend those cringelords as individuals, most anprims and other climatoids are absolute morons beyond all help.
Okay, now we’re actually done :)
My God you are utterly pathetic individual. You actually think that your personal opinion is the same as objective reality. Either you have an ego the size of a small continent or you don’t actually understand what you’re talking about.
I honestly suspect it to be the latter, your response to me was basically copy paste eco warrior bullshit. None of it has any real recognition of the challenges faced by changing, or any real desire to moderate or come to some kind of mutual agreement. All it is is pronouncements with your nose in the air firmly telling everybody how utterly scummy they are they don’t follow your belief structure.
I don’t actually really care that much about the climate and I’m pro-natural-exploitation so long as the spoils of it are shared evenly amongst the proletariat (present and future, so including some degree of preservation), but if some pathetic centrist system-defender wants to label me an eco-warrior I’ll wear it with pride.
Aww, profits go down? What a shame. Degrowth would be such a bad thing what will I do without the AI crypto meta verse being made in 2 years :(
A mutual agreement between a rapist and a victim of rape is not a compromise of a rapist being allowed to “rape a little bit” lmao it is an acknowledgment that one party is 100% right, and the other is absolutely fucking wrong.
I don’t really care if you don’t believe this shit, I think you should consider it, my zealous advocatry for one side I believe is right is not a moral condemnation of opposing and especially not more moderate-but-broadly-in-agreement individuals, it is a condemnation of the system.
The le evil socialists that comprise little more than half of Gen-Z in the UK aren’t out to get some slobby middle manager’s Toyota Camry, he’s just part of a system, they’re there for those who embezzled billions to actively enforce the system.
If you have to descend to erroneously equating the situation to rape then you’ve lost the argument. You cannot rely on an emotional response to an intellectual exercise it’s not only dishonest it’s also unhelpful.
The world is in the state it is in not because some evil person decided to be evil one day but because of a natural development of the human condition. We can’t all go back to living in caves that wouldn’t work, we can’t sustain the current population sitting around campfires and singing camping songs. So unless your advocating for mass genocide I don’t really understand what you want here.
I would prefer to live in the real world and be a realist, I want the world to improve, but I don’t believe that the way to improve it is to be an unmoving obstacle. Doing that is counterproductive to your own argument anyway because everyone will just get fed up with you and eventually ignore you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
And where did I mention emotional responses?
I somewhat agree, but it’s not so much a question of nature and the human condition as a question of material circumstances and class warfare.
Ah yes the two options boring cyberpunk dystopias and hunter-gatherer. No in-between. None at all. /s
But you just said that you don’t even understand what kind of world people want these days. I’m all for being effective, but it doesn’t seem like you believe in the possibility of structural change we need.
Not how it works at all historically.
Based
The way you reply to comments is not endearing you to anybody.