Tyre Extinguisher’ climate activists ‘disarm’ 100 SUVs in one night across Edinburgh

[Planx]

Says you. It's a type of violence and intimidation you agree with. So you don't see a problem.

Maybe I target women and leave them a pamphlet reminding them to act and behave as I want them to.

Maybe I go to target and deflate their customers tires to punish them for shopping at a place that sells pride merch

Doesn't matter what it is because it's cool to live in a world where you fuck with people to get them to do what you want them to do. It's all cool. As long as I personally don't see the harm that I'm doing to others it's all cool.

Click to shrink...

Those are classes of people being targetted for their innate, unchangeable characteristics, so yeah it's terrorism. They're using the act of deflating tires to intimidate a specific class of people. SUVs aren't a class of people and they are the target. Their owners bought them on an entirely voluntary basis.

They are worlds apart and I am actually disgusted with you treating them as the same thing. Being harassed for being a woman is not the same thing as owning an SUV and having its air let out.

 

[Biske]

Those are classes of people being targetted for their innate, unchangeable characteristics, so yeah it's terrorism. They're using the act of deflating tires to intimidate a specific class of people. SUVs aren't a class of people and they are the target. Their owners bought them on an entirely voluntary basis.

They are worlds apart and I am actually disgusted with you treating them as the same thing.

Click to shrink...

Why are you disgusted with my arbitrary choice of targeting someone? If we are at a place where a person gets to decide who they target and fuck with. What's the difference in my arbitrary choice of target over yours? It's no more ignorant than blindly assuming every person with a certain type of vehicle deserves to be targeted and fucked with. They as the victim are to blame and thus we can blamelessly attack them. That's the point isn't it?

There is no reason to have an SUV, no single legitimate reason. Just as their is no reason for a woman to dress provocatively. There is no legitimate reason for someone to be openly gay or lesbian or transgender. They don't need to. Why? Because I have decided it be so.

Can go on all day. Terrorism isn't terrorism only when it's a cause you don't support

 

[Xando]

Out of curiosity what what be the "right" way?

Click to shrink...

Go after car companies or oil companies and not random people

 

[Planx]

Why are you disgusted with my arbitrary choice of targeting someone? If we are at a place where a person gets to decide who they target and fuck with. What's the difference in my arbitrary choice of target over yours? It's no more ignorant than blindly assuming every person with a certain type of vehicle deserves to be targeted and fucked with. They as the victim are to blame and thus we can blamelessly attack them. That's the point isn't it?

There is no reason to have an SUV, no single legitimate reason. Just as their is no reason for a woman to dress provocatively. There is no legitimate reason for someone to be openly gay or lesbian or transgender. They don't need to. Why? Because I have decided it be so.

Can go on all day. Terrorism isn't terrorism only when it's a cause you don't support

Click to shrink...

The difference is those are inherent characteristics of someone! No one's born with the keys to a G-Wagon in their fucking pocket!

 

[kradical]

And this is allegedly a progressive space.

Click to shrink...

People really need to stop alleging this.

 

[Siggy-P]

When was I judgmental exactly? By saying that change comes from struggling? I've not said folks are bad for having SUVs. Are you confusing me with someone else?



I'm not grandstanding. However, there is a difference between entertainment and SUVs which are inherently more dangerous to folks. Again, I don't think SUV owners are bad. I think SUVs are worse for folks than other cars.



I agree. When did I say otherwise? I even pointed out that giving certain things up means that folks doesn't mean that folks must sacrifice all hobbies and hanging out with family/friends. I feel folks are attributing someone else's post to me?

Click to shrink...

We all agree they're terrible but we're talking deliberately fucking with random people's vehicles here, the only moral justification being arbitrary.

Should I extend the platitude to my own morals? Chocolate production supply lines features huge amounts of rape, murder, bodily harm and slavery. Should I have carte balance to randomly damage the property of people eating chocolate? They are directly funding that stuff after all. I've given it up, so can they.

 

[Necromanti]

Says you. It's a type of violence and intimidation you agree with. So you don't see a problem.

Doesn't matter what it is because it's cool to live in a world where you fuck with people to get them to do what you want them to do. It's all cool. As long as I personally don't see the harm that I'm doing to others it's all cool.

Click to shrink...

This seems like an extreme position to take, to the point that it would extend to something like the American civil rights movement.

 

[Biske]

The difference is those are inherent characteristics of someone! No one's born with the keys to a G-Wagon in their fucking pocket!

Click to shrink...

Says you. No woman was born in a mini skirt! No man was born kissing another man in public!

Look how easily we can both justify our actions.

 

[Planx]

Says you. No woman was born in a mini skirt! No man was born kissing another man in public!

Look how easily we can both justify our actions.

Click to shrink...

Do you not understand the difference between targetting property because of what that property is vs targetting the property that belongs to someone because of who that someone is?

 

[Thordinson]

Why are you disgusted with my arbitrary choice of targeting someone? If we are at a place where a person gets to decide who they target and fuck with. What's the difference in my arbitrary choice of target over yours? It's no more ignorant than blindly assuming every person with a certain type of vehicle deserves to be targeted and fucked with. They as the victim are to blame and thus we can blamelessly attack them. That's the point isn't it?

There is no reason to have an SUV, no single legitimate reason. Just as their is no reason for a woman to dress provocatively. There is no legitimate reason for someone to be openly gay or lesbian or transgender. They don't need to. Why? Because I have decided it be so.

Can go on all day. Terrorism isn't terrorism only when it's a cause you don't support

Click to shrink...

While I definitely don't agree with the actions taking by these activists, it's completely different than targeting folks for their characteristics.

As pointed out, you would be against large parts of the civil rights movements the world round with this position.

We all agree they're terrible but we're talking deliberately fucking with random people's vehicles here, the only moral justification being arbitrary.

Should I extend the platitude to my own morals? Chocolate production supply lines features huge amounts of rape, murder, bodily harm and slavery. Should I have carte balance to randomly damage the property of people eating chocolate? They are directly funding that stuff after all. I've given it up, so can they.

Click to shrink...

I've not said I agree with fucking with random folks' vehicles. I've said I disagree with their activists' actions.

It would be more productive and make more sense to destroy the chocolate itself or the factories.

 

[aerach71]

Says you. No woman was born in a mini skirt! No man was born kissing another man in public!

Look how easily we can both justify our actions.

Click to shrink...

You're justifying your actions to simp for the rich, they're justifying their actions because rich people are destroying the planet. You are not the same.

 

[Älg]

Doesn't matter what it is because it's cool to live in a world where you fuck with people to get them to do what you want them to do. It's all cool. As long as I personally don't see the harm that I'm doing to others it's all cool.

Click to shrink...

This could literally be about driving an SUV and would actually make perfect sense. Don't pretend like driving an SUV is personal choice; it's only personal until you murder someone.

 

[Biske]

Do you not understand the difference between targetting property because of what that property is vs targetting the property that belongs to someone because of who that someone is?

Click to shrink...

I do. Do you truly not understand that in both instances its a pointless destructive action that accomplishes nothing?

 

[jph139]

Go after car companies or oil companies and not random people

Click to shrink...

The problem with that is: at the end of the day, any changes those big entities make is going to trickle down to the common person. Those companies don't pollute for the fun of it like Captain Planet villains. They pollute because it's the easiest way to provide the most profitable goods/services to the most people.

Like, what's more inconvenient for people, letting air out of tires, or:

- Banning the ownership of SUVs within city limits
- Forcing an additional tax burden on vehicles over a certain size/gas mileage limit
- Drastically increasing gas taxes
- Mandating ownership of electric or hybrid vehicles after a certain date

Big companies don't exist in a vacuum. They harm the environment because we, as consumers, tolerate it so long as it doesn't effect our lifestyles in the near future. The idea of a green future that doesn't require massive sacrifices from the average person is a myth.

 

[BaconHat]

What is up with this thread, are people seriously trying to equate their choices of frikking cars with the bigotry people had and have to face due to their gender and sexual orientation?

 

[Booshka]

People really need to stop alleging this.

Click to shrink...

It's weird how so much of the sentiment is embedded in the existence of people living in the Imperial Core. Pretty bizarre for people to start mentioning not having kids as the same as not having an SUV, when literally billions of people actually do contribute less to climate change, while also being in countries with higher fertility rates.

Strange thread

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Go after car companies or oil companies and not random people

Click to shrink...

What would that accomplish? People will still buy SUVs and heavy vehicles.

 

[captive]

Maybe "3+ hour road trips" are unnecessary?

And how are vacations not recreational??

Click to shrink...

Lol what?

Some of our best friends live in Austin which is a 3.5 hour drive from Houston. And that's not even far. I can drive 6-7 hours in any direction just about and still be in Texas.
It'd be a complete waste of time and money to fly.

Whenever I see foreigners talk about this shit it always reminds me of those jokes about Europeans saying they'll just road trip from from NY to New Orleans for a weekend.

 

[Milky Way]

The problem with that is: at the end of the day, any changes those big entities make is going to trickle down to the common person. Those companies don't pollute for the fun of it like Captain Planet villains. They pollute because it's the easiest way to provide the most profitable goods/services to the most people.

Like, what's more inconvenient for people, letting air out of tires, or:

- Banning the ownership of SUVs within city limits
- Forcing an additional tax burden on vehicles over a certain size/gas mileage limit
- Drastically increasing gas taxes
- Mandating ownership of electric or hybrid vehicles after a certain date

Big companies don't exist in a vacuum. They harm the environment because we, as consumers, tolerate it so long as it doesn't effect our lifestyles in the near future. The idea of a green future that doesn't require massive sacrifices from the average person is a myth.

Click to shrink...

Yep. The only true way to combat climate change is degrowth and sacrifices from everybody.

 

[Planx]

I do. Do you truly not understand that in both instances its a pointless destructive action that accomplishes nothing?

Click to shrink...

Considering it was a non-destructive act, no. They are fundamentally different. Using a non-violent act specifically to intimidate a class of people for their innate characteristics is much, much worse than generic, easily corrected protest vandalism.

 

[Thordinson]

The problem with that is: at the end of the day, any changes those big entities make is going to trickle down to the common person. Those companies don't pollute for the fun of it like Captain Planet villains. They pollute because it's the easiest way to provide the most profitable goods/services to the most people.

Like, what's more inconvenient for people, letting air out of tires, or:

- Banning the ownership of SUVs within city limits
- Forcing an additional tax burden on vehicles over a certain size/gas mileage limit
- Drastically increasing gas taxes
- Mandating ownership of electric or hybrid vehicles after a certain date

Big companies don't exist in a vacuum. They harm the environment because we, as consumers, tolerate it so long as it doesn't effect our lifestyles in the near future. The idea of a green future that doesn't require massive sacrifices from the average person is a myth.

Click to shrink...

Exactly. It will require sacrifice for any large changes to take effect.

 

[Biske]

Considering it was a non-destructive act, no. They are fundamentally different. Using a non-violent act specifically to intimidate a class of people for their innate characteristics is much, much worse than generic, easily corrected protest vandalism.

Click to shrink...

No you're right. This will totally convert all those SUV owners and make the world a better place. Intimidating people is how you change hearts and minds.

 

[Rosebud]

Go after car companies or oil companies and not random people

Click to shrink...

So, just accept nothing can be done? lol

And people complain about "doom posting" in climate changes threads

 

[Booshka]

No you're right. This will totally convert all those SUV owners and make the world a better place. Intimidating people is how you change hearts and minds.

Click to shrink...

Lots of change historically is through intimidation and violence

 

[Vennt]

Lots of change historically is through intimidation and violence

Click to shrink...

The moment you decide violence and intimidation is an acceptable tool for anyone to use to force changes in opinion you open the door to severe unintended consequences when those who are more violent, and hold more distasteful opinions use those tools more effectively than you can.

Not a good road to go down, like they say, the road to hell is paved in good intentions.

 

[Biske]

Lots of change historically is through intimidation and violence

Click to shrink...

Yeah cause that's what works in the end. It's not convincing people that your way is actually better. It's not pushing for changing the laws or the courts. It's making people live in fear of what you will do to them. That is lasting, sustainable change right there.

We got gay marriage in the USA by randomly attacking straight people and they were so scared they came around.

 

[Sidebuster]

Let's go to the grocery store and deflate the tires of every car there. As that grocery store uses and sells plastics, chocolates, palm oil and sugar. They need to know they are the problem if they continue buying these things.

 

[Deleted member 4614]

No you're right. This will totally convert all those SUV owners and make the world a better place. Intimidating people is how you change hearts and minds.

Click to shrink...

No you're right, they should politely ask people to drive smaller cars and when they get told to fuck off say "sorry for bothering you, sir. We'll try again in 5 years"

 

[Planx]

No you're right. This will totally convert all those SUV owners and make the world a better place. Intimidating people is how you change hearts and minds.

Click to shrink...

And you're right, they are terrorists. Society should hang them as an example to anyone else who would dare commit the most extremely minor and fixable of property rights violations as a method of protest.

 

[Biske]

No you're right, they should politely ask people to drive smaller cars and when they get told to fuck off say "sorry for bothering you, sir. We'll try again in 5 years"

Click to shrink...

No, you target the car companies and governments. Hell it would be one thing if you were deflating cars at a car dealership to try and bully them into not selling these type of cars. At least then you aren't negligently harming individuals, especially people you have no idea about or what they think or push or vote for.

Punch up. Fight for systemic lasting change. Personalized vigilantism against individual people is counter productive and defeats your cause.

This person you are convinced is going to tell you to fuck off, is going to have a change of heart after you've fucked with them directly? Really?

 

[Necromanti]

We got gay marriage in the USA by randomly attacking straight people and they were so scared they came around.

Click to shrink...

If you're being serious, you might want to first look at the history of the fight for LGBT rights in the US. (Not random, but definitely not without violence.)

 

[Deleted member 4614]

No, you target the car companies and governments.

Click to shrink...

When the car company stops manufacturing SUVs do you think SUV lovers are gonna be thrilled?

What about when the government bans them?

Why am I not convinced that a bunch of insecure bullies who want to violently beat environmental protestors for inconveniencing them would be super thrilled when the government does the same thing?

Why are we optimizing for the comfort of SUV owners? How about we maximize shame instead?

 

[ekim]

In the long term, deflating tires is a disservice to the actual goal as the affected car owners definitely won't change their minds by such means.
Considering the fact this happened in an area in the world with good public transport and a pedestrian/bike friendly environment, I can *kind of* understand why it was done in the first place but the discussion that this caused in this thread is really revolving around wholly different situations.
If you live in a suburbia in the US or Canada, you actually need a car for basic needs like grabbing groceries or getting to work. The post-WW2 era that spawned this suburban sprawl with its copy&paste single-family houses (that one could actually afford back then) proves, that cities, that are built around cars are just not functional in the long run. What helps here is changing zoning laws and improving infrastructure to get people on bikes or on their foot.
I'm from Germany and I'm used to walk or bike everything (never owned or needed a car except to haul some furniture, for which I rented a car) so I had culture shock par excellence when I got to Houston some years ago. I tried to get from my hotel to a groceries store on the other side of the road (like a 3 minutes walk) but that road had 6 lanes with high-speed traffic and there was no pedestrian crossing, so I needed to get a car or hail a taxi.
This car centric design of North-American Cities is really flawed in my opinion.

 

[Biske]

When the car company stops manufacturing SUVs do you think SUV lovers are gonna be thrilled?

What about when the government bans them?

Why am I not convinced that a bunch of insecure bullies who want to violently beat environmental protestors for inconveniencing them would be super thrilled when the government does the same thing?

Why are we optimizing for the comfort of SUV owners? How about we maximize shame instead?

Click to shrink...

Governing through shame doesnt work.

 

[Reckheim]

Why are we optimizing for the comfort of SUV owners? How about we maximize shame instead?

Click to shrink...

yeh, but this isn't shaming anyone. Most people agree with the SUV owners and its pushing people to hate these activists more.

 

[Deleted member 4614]

yeh, but this isn't shaming anyone. Most people agree with the SUV owners and its pushing people to hate these activists more.

Click to shrink...

"Most people agree with the SUV owners" because they haven't been forced by anyone to confront their complicity in the climate crisis. Don't worry there won't be a shortage of opportunities for all these people to learn the consequences of their choices.

Also, it's not shaming them because it's just getting started. This century will either be the century environmentalism begins to disrupt everyone's lives or it's the century where the planet become uninhabitable for most life on earth.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

Besides Tesla, any EV SUVs exist yet? All I see are hybrids, I want to get an SUV as my next car but would rather finally go full EV.

Waiting on Honda/Toyota for their first EVs but it seems that's still a couple year away.

Click to shrink...

Tesla, Ford and Hyundai all make what people would cal "SUV" when they're really just crossovers

 

[Randam]

Because a Vito's relatively shorter nose, lower bonnet and large front window allow for better visibility. Because they're put on sensible, efficient wheels instead of wheels that look cool. Because you're much less likely to not see a child crossing the road inside a transport van. Because that child that you're hitting, isn't going to get town underneath your car because of your absurdly useless big wheels that you need for that day a year that it's actually snowing.

Click to shrink...

what kind of SUVs are you talking about if I may ask?

I doubt a Vito has smaller wheels then a SUV by Mercedes in the same price range.
and the hight has nothing to do with snow.

and visibility also isn't an argument for cars build in the last couple years.
you have sensors that warn you if something is to close to your car and even emergency braking assists.

Besides Tesla, any EV SUVs exist yet? All I see are hybrids, I want to get an SUV as my next car but would rather finally go full EV.

Waiting on Honda/Toyota for their first EVs but it seems that's still a couple year away.

Click to shrink...

VW with the ID.4, Skoda with the Enyaq, Audi with the big Etron or the small Q4 Etron.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

what kind of SUVs are you talking about if I may ask?

I doubt a Vito has smaller wheels then a SUV by Mercedes in the same price range.
and the hight has nothing to do with snow.

and visibility also isn't an argument for cars build in the last couple years.
you have sensors that warn you if something is to close to your car and even emergency braking assists.

Click to shrink...

I said it earlier in this thread but I can see out in front of me better driving a Ford Transit or Ram Promaster than I can my Outback. Ride height isn't the end all be all of identify if a car is safe. Many cars have long wide noses now and it greatly contributes to visibility issues.

 

[hwarang]

lost brain cells reading this thread.

absolute fucking morons. accomplishes nothing.

 

[fallingedge]

Tesla, Ford and Hyundai all make what people would cal "SUV" when they're really just crossovers

Click to shrink...

Do you think the Santa Fe is a crossover? Feels more like an SUV?

Although I am thinking of PHEV, so you would still be using gas. Just not nearly as much.

 

[FliX]

People really need to stop alleging this.

Click to shrink...

I mean, in the grand scheme of things of many other popular online gaming and media spaces it probably is more progressive than them, it's just not nearly as progressive as we like to think on certain issues.

 

[JorSneezy]

Granted, I haven't read the 20 pages of responses, but I'm not sure about this one y'all. The electricity used to refill the tires is probably just pumping out more greenhouse gases.

 

[Thordinson]

Yeah cause that's what works in the end. It's not convincing people that your way is actually better. It's not pushing for changing the laws or the courts. It's making people live in fear of what you will do to them. That is lasting, sustainable change right there.

We got gay marriage in the USA by randomly attacking straight people and they were so scared they came around.

Click to shrink...

A lot of civil rights and labor rights were obtained through bloodshed and violence.

The fight for LGBTQ+ rights has been a violent one. Stonewall is considered the start of the more organized movement of LGBTQ+ rights. It was a violent riot.

This is not to say violence is good. It's not. However, violence has been used to obtain rights that otherwise wouldn't be given freely.

If you're being serious, you might want to first look at the history of the fight for LGBT rights in the US. (Not random, but definitely not without violence.)

Click to shrink...

This.

 

[Cerulean_skylark]

Just because it's a lighter form of intimidation that you agree with and find amusing don't change what it is. Someone taking their own goals and ideas and imposing them on others to be intimidate them to do what they want.

Click to shrink...

like selling the future of life on the planet in order to market unnecessary goods like massive status vehicles?
I'll take deflated tired over that any day

 

[excelsiorlef]

I mean, in the grand scheme of things of many other popular online gaming and media spaces it probably is more progressive than them, it's just not nearly as progressive as we like to think on certain issues.

Click to shrink...

I mean this feelings about this specific form act of protest isn't a place where coming down on either side makes one more or less progressive

 

[LGHT_TRSN]

The continual doubling down of self righteousness and stupidity in this thread is really eye opening.

Apparently some ppl will defend literally anything and jump through whatever mental gymnastics required to maintain their "woke progressive" ERA badge.

 

[dammitmattt]

So much nonsense and shaming in this thread, and yet very few folks are focusing on the things that governments can (and are doing in some places) to incentivize the transition from ICE to EV.

SUVs are not a "type" of car anymore because they encompass the entire spectrum of automobiles in the same way that sedans do. They are on a variety of platforms and the only real difference for most of them is that they are slightly taller than their sedan equivalents and have more cargo space. And many folks have mentioned many times why these vehicles are preferable for a lot of people, and global sales charts reflect this shift.

So don't fight against the trend. Instead, like I've said before, follow Norway's model and incentivize the shift to EVs and discourage the purchase of ICEs. We can do this in a ton of ways, and it will be 100x more productive than trying to shame folks who have different lifestyles and circumstances than yours.

 

[Älg]

So much nonsense and shaming in this thread, and yet very few folks are focusing on the things that governments can (and are doing in some places) to incentivize the transition from ICE to EV.

SUVs are not a "type" of car anymore because they encompass the entire spectrum of automobiles in the same way that sedans do. They are on a variety of platforms and the only real difference for most of them is that they are slightly taller than their sedan equivalents and have more cargo space. And many folks have mentioned many times why these vehicles are preferable for a lot of people, and global sales charts reflect this shift.

So don't fight against the trend. Instead, like I've said before, follow Norway's model and incentivize the shift to EVs and discourage the purchase of ICEs. We can do this in a ton of ways, and it will be 100x more productive than trying to shame folks who have different lifestyles and circumstances than yours.

Click to shrink...

Thank god grandma got fucking annihilated by an EV and not and ICE vehicle. Hope she'll feel better soon!

 

[FliX]

I mean this feelings about this specific form act of protest isn't a place where coming down on either side makes one more or less progressive

Click to shrink...

Excessive handwringing over the very minor property "damage" most certainly does.