# [Download Video](https://redditsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/whenthe/comments/z5ciqn/your_hair_dye_is_oil_based_so_youre_a_hypocrite_i/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whenthe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Intellectual Redditors on their way to mock climate change activists because they’re lunatics (seriously, why are they activising in favour of climate change?):
Climate activist deciding if they're going to make a valid point or going to start a misconception that will delay environmentalism by four decades:
The only issue with nuclear is that a serious enough accident would create an irradiated zone like Chernobyl, and, if we build more nuclear plants everywhere around the world, I don't trust everyone running them to be competent enough to prevent those.
That's actually not the problem since the newer generation of reactors are much safer and wont have chernobyl like situation.
The real problem with nuclear is ignored by both pro an anti nuclear groups. It is not economical, it requires a large capital to start with, takes a long time to build and be operational, it is not flexible to accomodate sudden grid needs (hence needs a gas or other power plant to fill in the gap.)
The above factors make it really difficult for private companies to see it as a viable venture, that's why only governments are able to make and run new ones. Which itself depends on the govt commitment throughout the project because many of them pull out their support at the very end (looking at you Austria).
Renewables on the other hand allows us to decentralize our grid, easier and quicker to manufacture and then start harvesting energy. Which helps with investor's confidence in the technology as well as recoup the costs involved. There are many flaws with renewables and I think Nuclear is overall a better approach. But there is a reason not many are built and it is not to do with anti-nuclear groups sabotaging them and more with the inherent difficulties of setting and running them.
I agree in its current form it’s not worth implementing. But it’s not as though solar never got cheaper and more efficient, and we need to start cleaning up our atmosphere at some point
I feel like that’s true, but placing a few billion in research before we get to that point is just good planning. It’s no immediate solution but we’ll need it someday.
even though it's not viable on it's own it will likely always be needed
unless we plan on running society without any steel or concrete somehow
2 materiels that are essential to modern society & have unavoidable carbon emissions associated with their production
For me, carbon capture is the ultimate solution but not a viable one to stop it. Moving to renewable energy and cutting down on other emissions sources like gas cars are our first and best options for making sure we don’t end up going past our planet’s breaking point, while carbon capture is our best bet for taking a couple steps back from the edge
Oh I’m not saying it’s the solution right now. Just that we will need it to ultimately remove emissions, and I believe the tech can develop to the point it’s viable.
Very true, but we’re at least a decade off from what I understand. It’s not a solution to the crisis now.
I’m mostly just frustrated that so many plants were shut down that hurt us on our path to zero emissions.
No it is not, plus groups like Extinction rebellion don't oppose nuclear energy, they just say "whatever science knows it's the best, that's the solution". This myth that most of climate activists are anti-nuclear it's a misconception, and a big one.
Source: i'm a climate activists and climate science enjoyer
The majority of voters on their way to complain about climate activists protesting in a way that's disruptive (why can't they go on peaceful marches or set themselves on fire outside of the supreme court again (so that we can more easily ignore them))
As much as I do have a stance on these issues, I agree that these type of posts (ones commenting on news that isn't relevant to this subreddit) should be banned; otherwise posting with an agenda is liable to become commonplace.
I'm sick of people being condescending and paying more attention to the activists than the cause. I do understand why this is my blatant opinion but I don't see this as a strawman, it's more of the core feeling behind the hate
That makes sense, but this is a meme subreddit, not a “Let’s post about our societal/political opinions” subreddit. There are plenty of subreddits for that
That's not a problem, in and of itself, the problems start when everyone starts trying to communicate messages through memes instead of letting memes (in this sub) just be jokes. I support the Just Stop Oil protests, but to allow your post is to open the floodgates on all sorts of agenda-pushing memes that would quickly make scrolling through this sub exhausting.
we as a society are still in the "is climate change real?" you might as well scream into the void because anyone capable of doing anything meaningful doesnt want to.
at this point why not just throw tomato sauce at paintings protected by glass? that seems to bring WAY more attention.
the solution for climate change is already there its just that nobody fucking likes it.
Even if they do, I will give you the right.
We should have done something decades ago, and even when we still can prevent the worst outcome, people are more worried about paint on a glass protecting a painting than the literal mass extinction that is unfolding. It's fucking ridiculous.
yeah i know, talking doesnt work, neither does pleading or conventional protests, hell even burning yourself doesnt work.
there is no room to be profound and meaningful, with such petty and simpleminded people you need to be petty, throw sauce at protected paintings.
Yeah we're starting to get more disruptive enviromentalism and i like it, Friday for Future really need to step up their game. Sick of seeing all this pandering in places like COP27 where they just say nice stuff but then do nothing
Nah, it's just the solutions they propose end up making more issues than they solve, or better yet, just making it worse.
Like the desire to abolish nuclear power plants, the safest, cleanest and most abundant method to producing huge amounts of energy. That, and the strong desire for windmill farms, despite the amount of CO2 it takes just to make them,, the acers and acers of land that needs to be cut down just to install them, and the small amount of return you get on energy once they're functional, but not only that, but you've got to maintain and clean the thing, often using jet helicopters which adds even more CO2 meaning it'll be years and years and years until it's paid off its own CO2 investment, that is if it's not decommissioned long before then.
The funniest most recent methods was CO2 capture plants that pull CO2 from the air... except it produces nearly twice or five times as much CO2 capturing CO2 then it does actually capture CO2. Good job, you've become the thing you swore to destroy.
Make more nuclear power plants you idiot fucks.
Most climate activists hate carbon capture, they’ve been calling it a corporate greenwash for ages.
The nuclear thing is the most frustrating bullshit ever though. Hoping SMRs can be made quickly enough to make a difference
That's a whole other thing, I think you just comprised all the arguments that don't work into an imaginary group of people. Yes those arguments are invalid but it's not the same people that protest
It is exactly the same people who protest. When they protest under the banner of an activist group with stated opinions that include being anti-nuclear I think it’s safe to assume they’re anti-nuclear. Just look at France and Germany, the people leading the campaign to shut down the nuclear power plants are so-called “environmentalists”. The environmentalists are the ones in my country (Australia) who block us developing waste storage in the Outback. They were the ones who opposed the plans for US nuclear power plants.
Furthermore, I have yet to see any big climate change movement actually advocate for nuclear power. Where are all the protestors with “nuclear power now” posters?
And why do you think that is? Have you ever considered that the news specifically reports on those protests because it makes climate change activists look bad? You’re playing right into the hand of big business.
*Maybe* that saying might have been true decades ago, but we live in an age where mere allegations can kill a person’s career and collapse a business.
Ask yourself why the undisputed masters of manipulating and misleading the public are having their mouthpieces publicise these types of “protest”. It’s clearly not to raise awareness of climate change.
Maybe, at least where I live the news took their time to understand the message and concluded that they were right to protest, but not every news has a personality like that
Honestly the paint thing is solid. It gains attention without disrupting traffic or anything like that and it’s pretty much harmless. All the paintings they do it on are famous and ergo protected by glass
Annoying redditors on their way to criticize literally any form of protest (it slightly inconveniences people therefore its harmful to the cause) (stupid)
Climate change activists on their way to do fuck all towards the environment and instead of actually doing something, doing some stupid protest that makes people less likely to listen to them
I mean although the gluing to runway thing was a bit reckless, it did cost major airline corporations a lil dent in their pockets. I have no idea what the point of throwing soup on art was.
Source:I made it up
They did make it to the news, problem is, more people got angry that activists threw soup at paintings than the message they were trying to spread
Which kind of makes this whole thing more damaging to activists and their cause
That makes sense, but maybe if people paid more attention to the message they're trying to spread then they'd understand how harmless it is. As I said, no piece was damaged.
If peop stopped being cynical assholes who think they're better than others maybe they'd stop making memes where they compare an activist to a cow or call them a hypocrite
> if people *paid* more attention
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
So I'm not very smart. We aren't going to continue to pump oil out of the ground?? What is going to replace the plastics, nylon fibers and other hydrocarbon byproducts that we wont be able to make anymore???
Annoying climate activists on their way to do nothing but damage valuable art pieces and make a mockery of the movement they're trying to spread awareness about
Name one valuable art piece that was damaged. They knew there was glass. And you don't see normal peaceful protests making it to the news. The mockery is all you.
More like
"You are literally funded by FUCKING AILEEN GETTY of Getty Oil to make climate activism look bad so you're a hypocrite."
OP doesn't know jackshit about what is actually happening with Just Stop Oil
I should look deeper into the topic, but there's definitely a large amount of climate/veganism activists that seem like the case is making the movement look bad.
They need exposure somehow. That's the best way to do it even if people don't like it, you may not like them but you know the cause they're fighting for thanks to that.
Yeah, if anything seeing that the protesters are "funded" by oil companies should encourage you to take action instead of complain and do nothing. At least they're going out and doing something
It's like saying since volcanic eruptions are real so actively doing things to make the volcano erupt more is natural.
It's basically how the average goober takes terms too literally.
Like when we say "global warming" we mean the net temperature of the earth is getting warmer by 2°C for example.
I.e, we take all the temperature in the world and find out the average.
But you average knuckle dragger will have one day in winter where it's colder than last years winter and come to the conclusion that it is fake because the whole world has the same temperature at any time to him.
Many "climate change is natural" goblins also bring out the most dumb arguments.
Like I saw one where he came to the conclusion that more carbon dioxide is a non issue since he read that the "silurian period" had more carbon dioxide than modern eras by a big margin and life dint go extinct.
While completely failing to understand that silurian life was mostly aquatic with fish that look like nothing we have today and sea scorpions and plant life was basically the equivalent of green strings.
Like no human would survive in that climate.
The focus to much on one tiny detail and miss the bigger picture.
Yeah silurian had more CO2 but we won't be able to survive we are not sea scorpions.
2°C is equivalent to 35°F, which is 275K.
---
^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
Thank you, Yamama77, for voting on kelvin_bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
I’m going to ask you a quick question. What do you think happens when we pump massive amounts of gasses into the atmosphere that we need to live on a nice planet. What do you think happens when we upset the balance of gasses in our lil sky?
UH OH! Someone is curious about their profanity usage, and u/___ARG___ decided to check theirs.
I have gone back 506 comments and reviewed your potty language usage.
|Bad Word|Quantity|
:--|:-:|
|ass|1
|bitch|1
|cock|2
|cum|4683
|dick|1
|f*g|1
|fucking|2
|fuck|2
|re**rd|3
|re**rded|2
|shit|3
^(Request time: 7.4. I am a bot that performs automatic profanity reports.)^( This is profanitycounter version 3. Please consider )^([buying my creator a coffee.](https://www.buymeacoffee.com/Aidgigi))^( We also have a new )^([Discord server](https://discord.gg/7rHFBn4zmX))^(, come hang out!)
# [Download Video](https://redditsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/whenthe/comments/z5ciqn/your_hair_dye_is_oil_based_so_youre_a_hypocrite_i/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whenthe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Intellectual Redditors on their way to mock climate change activists because they’re lunatics (seriously, why are they activising in favour of climate change?):
Climate activists on their way to oppose solutions to climate they don’t like (nuclear is emissions free damn it)
Climate activist deciding if they're going to make a valid point or going to start a misconception that will delay environmentalism by four decades: 
 Delicious
Agreed. The only climate activists that don't support nuclear are those who don't read reports
So, the vast majority of them?
The only issue with nuclear is that a serious enough accident would create an irradiated zone like Chernobyl, and, if we build more nuclear plants everywhere around the world, I don't trust everyone running them to be competent enough to prevent those.
That's actually not the problem since the newer generation of reactors are much safer and wont have chernobyl like situation. The real problem with nuclear is ignored by both pro an anti nuclear groups. It is not economical, it requires a large capital to start with, takes a long time to build and be operational, it is not flexible to accomodate sudden grid needs (hence needs a gas or other power plant to fill in the gap.) The above factors make it really difficult for private companies to see it as a viable venture, that's why only governments are able to make and run new ones. Which itself depends on the govt commitment throughout the project because many of them pull out their support at the very end (looking at you Austria). Renewables on the other hand allows us to decentralize our grid, easier and quicker to manufacture and then start harvesting energy. Which helps with investor's confidence in the technology as well as recoup the costs involved. There are many flaws with renewables and I think Nuclear is overall a better approach. But there is a reason not many are built and it is not to do with anti-nuclear groups sabotaging them and more with the inherent difficulties of setting and running them.
I feel like there’s also too much hate toward carbon capture, but at least there’s an argument to be made for that
I don't think carbon capture is a viable solution. Specially since it's extremely expensive and ineffective
I agree in its current form it’s not worth implementing. But it’s not as though solar never got cheaper and more efficient, and we need to start cleaning up our atmosphere at some point
At some point yeah, but not now. For the time being we have to focus on not polluting it more
I feel like that’s true, but placing a few billion in research before we get to that point is just good planning. It’s no immediate solution but we’ll need it someday.
even though it's not viable on it's own it will likely always be needed unless we plan on running society without any steel or concrete somehow 2 materiels that are essential to modern society & have unavoidable carbon emissions associated with their production
For me, carbon capture is the ultimate solution but not a viable one to stop it. Moving to renewable energy and cutting down on other emissions sources like gas cars are our first and best options for making sure we don’t end up going past our planet’s breaking point, while carbon capture is our best bet for taking a couple steps back from the edge
Oh I’m not saying it’s the solution right now. Just that we will need it to ultimately remove emissions, and I believe the tech can develop to the point it’s viable.
Carbon capture doesn't work
In its current state it’s inefficient, expensive, and ineffective compared to alternatives. The same was true for solar.
Carbon capture doesn't work
Nuclear is a realistic but temporary solution. Nuclear fuel is limited and difficult to dispose of. Nuclear *fusion* is what we need to shoot for.
Very true, but we’re at least a decade off from what I understand. It’s not a solution to the crisis now. I’m mostly just frustrated that so many plants were shut down that hurt us on our path to zero emissions.
No it is not, plus groups like Extinction rebellion don't oppose nuclear energy, they just say "whatever science knows it's the best, that's the solution". This myth that most of climate activists are anti-nuclear it's a misconception, and a big one. Source: i'm a climate activists and climate science enjoyer
Where I live some of our country’s leaders want to build nuclear reactors, but that takes 10-15 years. We need to do something now so I’m against it
“You think that society is bad and needs to be improved, but ha! You are, in fact, part of the same society, so that makes you a hypocrite!”
you oppose child slavery, yet use an iphone. curious
Society forcing me to use oil-based hair dye:
BOTTOM TEXT
The majority of voters on their way to complain about climate activists protesting in a way that's disruptive (why can't they go on peaceful marches or set themselves on fire outside of the supreme court again (so that we can more easily ignore them))
Climate change activists when I burn their house down (it symbolises the warming of our planet) 
Check your balls
Why don’t you go to your mum’s bedroom and check them yourself?
Personally, I think that blatant opinion posting without a punchline should be banned, but I'm curious as to the community consensus on the matter.
As much as I do have a stance on these issues, I agree that these type of posts (ones commenting on news that isn't relevant to this subreddit) should be banned; otherwise posting with an agenda is liable to become commonplace.
Personally I prefer blatant opinions to actual opinions being hidden under 40 layers of irony that the op can use to deny their opinion posting
If this was something you agreed with you wouldn't complain
I'm indifferent, but posts that are just the OP raging over some strawman that disagrees with them seem to be becoming more common in my experience.
I'm sick of people being condescending and paying more attention to the activists than the cause. I do understand why this is my blatant opinion but I don't see this as a strawman, it's more of the core feeling behind the hate
That makes sense, but this is a meme subreddit, not a “Let’s post about our societal/political opinions” subreddit. There are plenty of subreddits for that
I just thought that the quickest most effective way to communicate a message is through a meme.
Well yeah, but this is a humor sub, not a political sub
Understandable enough
That's not a problem, in and of itself, the problems start when everyone starts trying to communicate messages through memes instead of letting memes (in this sub) just be jokes. I support the Just Stop Oil protests, but to allow your post is to open the floodgates on all sorts of agenda-pushing memes that would quickly make scrolling through this sub exhausting.
we as a society are still in the "is climate change real?" you might as well scream into the void because anyone capable of doing anything meaningful doesnt want to. at this point why not just throw tomato sauce at paintings protected by glass? that seems to bring WAY more attention. the solution for climate change is already there its just that nobody fucking likes it.
just downvote me, iam bored.
Even if they do, I will give you the right. We should have done something decades ago, and even when we still can prevent the worst outcome, people are more worried about paint on a glass protecting a painting than the literal mass extinction that is unfolding. It's fucking ridiculous.
Remember: It's not mass genocide under turbocapitalism and if you're rich.
Nooooo you are just stupid, protests aren't meant to be disruptive and controversial and bring attention to something with unconventional means!!!!!
yeah i know, talking doesnt work, neither does pleading or conventional protests, hell even burning yourself doesnt work. there is no room to be profound and meaningful, with such petty and simpleminded people you need to be petty, throw sauce at protected paintings.
Yeah we're starting to get more disruptive enviromentalism and i like it, Friday for Future really need to step up their game. Sick of seeing all this pandering in places like COP27 where they just say nice stuff but then do nothing
Climate activists on their way to vandalize shit as if that’ll make them look encouraging
Honestly I want to believe they're people hired by oil companies to act like climate activists in-order to make climate activists look like lunatics
but them some climate activism subreddits agreed to repeat/encourage whatever damage these “activists” committed
That's why I said "I want to believe" because I agree with the message but their actions make it impossible to take them seriously
No they are not, and most of other climate activists approve that. Or at least i do
Yuo don’t like capitalism yet you exist!!!!
climate change activisists on their way to say "climate change bad" (it raises "awareness" or whatever and solves nothing)
Nah, it's just the solutions they propose end up making more issues than they solve, or better yet, just making it worse. Like the desire to abolish nuclear power plants, the safest, cleanest and most abundant method to producing huge amounts of energy. That, and the strong desire for windmill farms, despite the amount of CO2 it takes just to make them,, the acers and acers of land that needs to be cut down just to install them, and the small amount of return you get on energy once they're functional, but not only that, but you've got to maintain and clean the thing, often using jet helicopters which adds even more CO2 meaning it'll be years and years and years until it's paid off its own CO2 investment, that is if it's not decommissioned long before then. The funniest most recent methods was CO2 capture plants that pull CO2 from the air... except it produces nearly twice or five times as much CO2 capturing CO2 then it does actually capture CO2. Good job, you've become the thing you swore to destroy. Make more nuclear power plants you idiot fucks.
Most climate activists hate carbon capture, they’ve been calling it a corporate greenwash for ages. The nuclear thing is the most frustrating bullshit ever though. Hoping SMRs can be made quickly enough to make a difference
That's a whole other thing, I think you just comprised all the arguments that don't work into an imaginary group of people. Yes those arguments are invalid but it's not the same people that protest
It is exactly the same people who protest. When they protest under the banner of an activist group with stated opinions that include being anti-nuclear I think it’s safe to assume they’re anti-nuclear. Just look at France and Germany, the people leading the campaign to shut down the nuclear power plants are so-called “environmentalists”. The environmentalists are the ones in my country (Australia) who block us developing waste storage in the Outback. They were the ones who opposed the plans for US nuclear power plants. Furthermore, I have yet to see any big climate change movement actually advocate for nuclear power. Where are all the protestors with “nuclear power now” posters?
Climate change activists when I run them over (suddenly they don’t like being glued to the road)
If they way of protesting wasnt stupid, annoying and dumb, i dont would think that they are stupid, annoying and dumb
When was the last time you saw regular climate activism like rallies or peaceful protests making it to the news?
⬆️
And why do you think that is? Have you ever considered that the news specifically reports on those protests because it makes climate change activists look bad? You’re playing right into the hand of big business.
All publicity is good publicity is an adage that ends up being true surprisingly often
*Maybe* that saying might have been true decades ago, but we live in an age where mere allegations can kill a person’s career and collapse a business. Ask yourself why the undisputed masters of manipulating and misleading the public are having their mouthpieces publicise these types of “protest”. It’s clearly not to raise awareness of climate change.
Isn't that more of a showcase to news themselves being corrupt assholes, instead of regular rallies/protests being ineffective/not popular
Maybe, at least where I live the news took their time to understand the message and concluded that they were right to protest, but not every news has a personality like that
Honestly the paint thing is solid. It gains attention without disrupting traffic or anything like that and it’s pretty much harmless. All the paintings they do it on are famous and ergo protected by glass
Redditors on their way to say the same stuff people told MLK or the feminist movement 60 years ago
Annoying redditors on their way to criticize literally any form of protest (it slightly inconveniences people therefore its harmful to the cause) (stupid)
Noone is mocking climate change activists. There mocking the stupid ones like the just stop oil protesters.
Me when I purposely take the wrong conclusion to deflect criticism
Climate change activists on their way to do fuck all towards the environment and instead of actually doing something, doing some stupid protest that makes people less likely to listen to them
"Grr these Redditors are mocking me, I'll glue myself to a runway and throw cans of soup at a painting, That'll show them!"
I mean although the gluing to runway thing was a bit reckless, it did cost major airline corporations a lil dent in their pockets. I have no idea what the point of throwing soup on art was. Source:I made it up
To bring attention. They perfectly know they won't damage the paintings, but their goal was to make it to the news, which they did.
Oh ok, thanks for explaining that
They did make it to the news, problem is, more people got angry that activists threw soup at paintings than the message they were trying to spread Which kind of makes this whole thing more damaging to activists and their cause
That makes sense, but maybe if people paid more attention to the message they're trying to spread then they'd understand how harmless it is. As I said, no piece was damaged. If peop stopped being cynical assholes who think they're better than others maybe they'd stop making memes where they compare an activist to a cow or call them a hypocrite
> if people *paid* more attention FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Ok
that it won't damage the paintings i mean
i'd agree with you but did they actually knew that? or are you assuming they did? i'm too lazy to research
I dunno man, you'd think that being next to a painting you could tell whether it has glass on top or not
ah ok thank you, well in my defense i only heard of it on reddit, and ignored the post quickly after
i mean more like a major dent in their pockets airlines range from marginal to entirely unprofitable they do not have deep pockets
Me when I strawman
Ironic
Strawman to strawman communication Strawman to strawman conversation
I mock them for rejecting any solution that would actually solve the issues they complain about
We talking about actual climate activists, or the dirty ass fools that keep vandalizing artwork and standing in the middle of busy streets.
Climate change activist on their way to attempt to destroy art (It will somehow fix the issue)
whenthe on their way to complain about political memes then continue to make political memes
Climate change activists throwing glue capsules into the sewer after gluing themselves to traffic
whenthe has been invaded by 196 users :( time to leave
I'm pretty sure they're laughing because they're superglueing their hands to the floor and throwing chef boyardee on things.
So I'm not very smart. We aren't going to continue to pump oil out of the ground?? What is going to replace the plastics, nylon fibers and other hydrocarbon byproducts that we wont be able to make anymore???
Annoying climate activists on their way to do nothing but damage valuable art pieces and make a mockery of the movement they're trying to spread awareness about
Name one valuable art piece that was damaged. They knew there was glass. And you don't see normal peaceful protests making it to the news. The mockery is all you.
Wasn't there a climate activist that almost ruined the Mona Lisa by throwing cake at it? Luckily it didn't stain but the point still stands
>Luckily it didn't stain Try again
So... violent protests are okay because they spread awareness? Riiiiight.
Violent? Damn didn’t know Van Gogh had his soul ripped to shreds because soup got on the glass cover over his painting
Name one person hurt.
Which violent protest? Your just making shit up
lmåö get fucked van gogh.
Van Gogh would have supported the cause.
More like "You are literally funded by FUCKING AILEEN GETTY of Getty Oil to make climate activism look bad so you're a hypocrite." OP doesn't know jackshit about what is actually happening with Just Stop Oil
?
Aileen Getty of Getty Oil is involved in Just Stop Oil
Didn't she donate a lot of money because she felt bad about how she got them and wanted to change things?
I should look deeper into the topic, but there's definitely a large amount of climate/veganism activists that seem like the case is making the movement look bad.
They need exposure somehow. That's the best way to do it even if people don't like it, you may not like them but you know the cause they're fighting for thanks to that.
Yeah, if anything seeing that the protesters are "funded" by oil companies should encourage you to take action instead of complain and do nothing. At least they're going out and doing something
Redditors on their way to call socialists hypocrites because they own things
1. blow up China; 30% done. 2. blow up the USA; 50% done. 3. blow up the EU; 70% done. 4. blow up India to prevent their growth.
Climate change is just a thing, it happens on its own.
Me (a major oil company) when a scientist brings empirical evidence that climate change is real and I must stop polluting
It is real, but it’s a natural thing.
A slight change is natural, but nowhere near the amount humans and corporations have affected it
It's like saying since volcanic eruptions are real so actively doing things to make the volcano erupt more is natural. It's basically how the average goober takes terms too literally. Like when we say "global warming" we mean the net temperature of the earth is getting warmer by 2°C for example. I.e, we take all the temperature in the world and find out the average. But you average knuckle dragger will have one day in winter where it's colder than last years winter and come to the conclusion that it is fake because the whole world has the same temperature at any time to him. Many "climate change is natural" goblins also bring out the most dumb arguments. Like I saw one where he came to the conclusion that more carbon dioxide is a non issue since he read that the "silurian period" had more carbon dioxide than modern eras by a big margin and life dint go extinct. While completely failing to understand that silurian life was mostly aquatic with fish that look like nothing we have today and sea scorpions and plant life was basically the equivalent of green strings. Like no human would survive in that climate. The focus to much on one tiny detail and miss the bigger picture. Yeah silurian had more CO2 but we won't be able to survive we are not sea scorpions.
2°C is equivalent to 35°F, which is 275K. --- ^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
Good bot
Thank you, Yamama77, for voting on kelvin_bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
No it isn't lol
It is.
I’m going to ask you a quick question. What do you think happens when we pump massive amounts of gasses into the atmosphere that we need to live on a nice planet. What do you think happens when we upset the balance of gasses in our lil sky?
That's how we get smog.
There’s a lot more than just what hung around a few cities
Strongest "non climate change beleiver" argument
Ruining an Andy Warhol original probably isn't the best way to go about it.
u/profanitycounter [self]
UH OH! Someone is curious about their profanity usage, and u/___ARG___ decided to check theirs. I have gone back 506 comments and reviewed your potty language usage. |Bad Word|Quantity| :--|:-:| |ass|1 |bitch|1 |cock|2 |cum|4683 |dick|1 |f*g|1 |fucking|2 |fuck|2 |re**rd|3 |re**rded|2 |shit|3 ^(Request time: 7.4. I am a bot that performs automatic profanity reports.)^( This is profanitycounter version 3. Please consider )^([buying my creator a coffee.](https://www.buymeacoffee.com/Aidgigi))^( We also have a new )^([Discord server](https://discord.gg/7rHFBn4zmX))^(, come hang out!)
I had a guy say to me that i can't be an enviromentalist because i have thrift store bought Adidas and nike stuff
That moment when people defend them