Talking to Just Stop Oil - How Far Will They Go?

[@frankieslounge]

At least this guy didn't storm out of Alex's interview because they discussed climate change for an hour

[@oosmanbeekawoo]

But then again these are the kind to sleep on your doormat all day to tell you stop using oil! Doubt he'd leave so soon!

[@glebjohnson9057]

​@@oosmanbeekawooYou are the idiot here. 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. It's about stoping them, not the little man.

[@BWGmedia]

yeah he just dodged most of the questions and took no accountability for the bad actions of his movement, instead justifying it at every turn.

[@Beer_Dad1975]

Dude keeps a bat'leth in his kitchen, wonder if he's ever heard about what the Klingons did to Praxis...

[@5driedgrams]

I had to light a joint to watch that shit.

[@nathanu6759]

I’ve never seen a interview with a just stop oil member, where they were actually able to speak without interruption.

[@chazmcgooski83]

these guys speaking without interruption is a disservice to everyone’s intelligence

[@HarryNicNicholas]

folks are "passionate"

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i mean, lol.

[@BlanBonco]

Never heard of them but big oil is basically sacred in the USA. Their own scientists predicted global warming and they covered it up. Don't like science be Amish.

[@JamWard]

Neither have I! Sadly we learnt nothing new with having him speak uninterrupted, only that he's ever so slightly better than avoiding answering a simple question than the rest of his friends are.

[@timcoombe]

This is the first Alex O'Connor interview I've watched, what a breath of fresh air. I have huge admiration for James Skeet here, and it was a relief to hear a rational and intelligent interview about Just Stop Oil, without the default outrage.

[@undefined167]

Agreed. His argument about killing a baby on the road to potentially save BILLIONS of people had me fanboying 😍 Reminds me of another brave and intelligent fellow in Germany of yestercentury

[@michaelmcgee335]

JSO causes outrage by their blatantly bad behaviour. They’re a bunch of entitled jerks that think they’re saints that’s about it.

[@oktopuss2006]

​@@undefined167 So if I understand correctly, because this guy is okay with the very small potential of someone being hurt in a protest that concerns millions of lives, objectively verified through many scientific channels, he is like Hitler? That is the most absurd and shit take I've seen in a while, and the fact that it has 8 likes is disappointing.

[@undefined167]

@@oktopuss2006 🤓☝️

[@AlphaMelGibson]

@@oktopuss2006 It is so deranged on so many levels, very sad. Im just gonna assume its a troll, to make myself feel better. A part of me wants to know where that idea came from.. the other part just wants to live.

[@BonzaiSG]

Peter Hitchens: "You're obsessed with oil."

[@simplelife88393]

It's not because you've got the better of me.. - white van man stuck in traffic bc teenagers sit in the street

[@MrAdamo]

Yeah but as of last episode we’re supposed to hate this guy, so I wouldn’t trust anything he says

[@wasdwasdedsf]

yea... this cultist clearely is obsessed with oil and cant see anything clearly whatsoever

[@Roy-wd7kh]

"You and your oily friends!"

[@lillypotter6722]

⁠I am loving all of theses comments 😂😂

[@tamei66]

It is so refreshing to have someone like Alex who is able to act and interview in such a level of neutrality. People who can take their emotions out of conversations are way too seldom nowadays.

[@raphaelnej8387]

Even his face is expressionless. He is so dedicated.

[@ImNotQualifiedToSayThisBut]

If this is a quality people are looking for in interviewers I should probably change career paths

[@picklesandcheese25]

@@ImNotQualifiedToSayThisButdo it

[@robertaylor9218]

That isn’t always possible, but you can identify your bias, disclose it and try to account for it. This particular approach is irrespective of bias or opinion, because it is simply offering every reasoned challenge available. Which I do think is healthy.

[@MarcoVos]

I whole heartedly support this. And I do think that there is a large audience for content that deals with the more current events discussed in such a manner and with a focus on philosophy

[@TheSletrab]

I think James did a really great job in this interview. I don't know if I could say I support the organization still, but hearing how they address some of thse tougher questions and how they explain their actions has increased the respect I have for the group.

[@nathanaelgazzard7989]

I suspect they may be less concerned about whether you or I support the organisation than that you and I support the cause

[@angusmcculloch6653]

And just like that, we see that everyone is a Machiavellian. The end justifies the means or, more accurately to what Machiavelli wrote, while the act accuses the result excuses. Under this person's reasoning, what can't I do because Situation X is just so extreme? I get enough people to agree with me, and what act could not be excused? We have to take extreme actions, because we believe this is an extreme threat.

[@Moonchild15225]

​@@angusmcculloch6653​ Nelson Mandela is branded a hero to this day, even though he was part of an organisation (the ANC) that committed terrorist acts against civilians (and was classified as a rerrorist organisation for decades. Nelson Mandela himself was in terrorist watch lists until 2005) and he himself condoned the bombing of a mall. I would say it is all relative, if you are victorious then you become the hero. Mandela went to jail for his terrorism for goodness' sake, but eventually he got out, apologised about the terrorism, and lead the movement afterwards, becoming the hero we think about today. Whether we like it or not, history is written by the victors, even if they are terrorists and extremists, yes. We should condemn terrorism because of its impracticality, as it rarely ever works, but when it does work... terrorists become heroes. I personally do not think it works, and only works as a fluke when it does, so we should engage in better and more productive activities, like organising protests, strikes, picket lines and so on, but that does not justify moralising about pepple turning into Machiavellian masterminds when we reap the benefits and worship the victories of those same we judge. If you celebrate the end of apartheid in SA, you celebrate the extremists that are now heroes. There is no rule book that explains whether it is right or wrong to be an extremist, but its appeal is written in our history, so I don't judge them, just recommend against them. Be critical or your heroes, both the moderate ones and the extremist ones, don't put them in a pedestal, sympathise with them without compromising your values but also without siding with those who do not care for a better world. If you had been a moderate in South Africa, or someone "against extremism", you would have sided with an apartheid state that jailed those fighters. Instead, you should oppose that state and its right to violence in the name of "order", AS WELL AS the senseless violence of extremists. In practice, this means opposing the imprisonment of those extremists. Would you do so?

[@Moonchild15225]

As a veteran organising climate protests, if you have any questions that James answered unsatisfactorily go ahead and ask! I feel like he could have done much better actually, there was no need for an utilitarian defence of his protests at all.

[@fetB]

@@Moonchild15225 I would ask if i may. Like what is it, this actually achieved, because all this guy said was, it got coverage. But media coverage does nothing because the people have no option to just stop oil. They would use renewable energy if they have access and if it saves them money, which is definitely possible, but its also not in their hands. The government and the oil industry are obviously aware. It was a big topic around 2000 and even before in the 80's, the problem was known. After the 70's oil crisis, there was even attempts in large scale battery development, but obviously oil has a lot of influence. The only thing that actually caused a disruption, is Tesla inc building a viable BEV, which not only caused a disruption in the fossile fuel sector, more importantly, it showed and gave people the ability to do something for the cause. This protest does absolutely nothing to help it. In fact it may actually just cause more harm than good.

[@Lee-nl1tg]

I am very pleased you interviewed a spokesperson from Just Stop Oil. To give them a platform to speak and share their position and offer respectful pushback. O'Connor did a swell job at representing our questions and concerns in his interviewing.

[@buffalowt]

I was quite happy to see this come across my dash though i would have appreciated more direct answers to the hypotheticals that were presented so I could learn about the mental thought process of this individual. (yes, no, maybe, under certain circumstances, maybe, I don’t know) with explanation to build on the answer rather than loop back to ideology or talking about the mainstream media. One example being at 14:52 and another related being at 17:03 For the second one they state “i would be outraged” but passes over what their tangible response would be. Staying in the vehicle stopped, getting out of the vehicle to confront the protesters, pushing through the protesters. This is a movement I agree with but I can say right now if I were in the situation of a loved one in my car requiring medical attention I am either harmlessly nudging through the protesters or if they offer resistance I am am putting the peddle to the floor.

[@stevenb3854]

I do agree, however it was very frustrating to see Alex repeatedly ad nauseum return to the hypothetical situation of a baby being harmed on the way to a hospital, which is not something that ever happened during a Just Oil protest. Yes, it's possible that a mother was delayed with a baby in the car, but that did NOT cause any harm to that baby - let's be real, it would be frontpage news all over the country. It is also very naive. Does Alex really believe that if Just Oil adopted a "move out the way" for "emergency situations" that everybody wouldn't just claim they were in an emergency situation? Philosophy and hypothetics are all well and good, but you have to return to the real world at some point. I love Alex's videos, but felt underwhelmed by his line of discourse in this debate.

[@Lee-nl1tg]

@@stevenb3854 I agree, well said.

[@jond-yx7cr]

It did cause harm to the baby because the care needed was delayed. Hypotheticals are useful to estimate risk factors. If your child runs into the road and almost gets hit by a car, it's probably a naive thing to say "well he didn't get hit, lets stay in reality, nothing bad happened so no problem". Perhaps it's more healthy to use a hypothetical such as "if my child did get hit he/she would be dead, therefore I should take action to reduce the probability that my child doesn't run out into the road. It's part of critical thinking.

[@stevenb3854]

@jond-yx7cr Please can you confirm where you saw that the baby was harmed? It's the exact point the guy was making. That the people who were there will have had access to information that informed their decision, that we are not privvy to becsuse we were not there. If their actions actually caused harm, then we'd have something to talk about. As far as we know, nobody was harmed. They already move out the way of emergency vehicles. Their methods have not caused the harm that you speak of. Your implication is that Just Oil have not considered the risk implications, which is evidently total nonsense because they plan out their disruptions with a lot of preparation and scrutiny over the risks, and consequently nobody has been hurt. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

[@willth7305]

This guy: omg I'm such a huge fan! Alex: I have no idea who you are No better way to start an interview

[@seanmcmichael2551]

@williamthomas So... I'm sat with headphones on, drinking a quiet beer in the pub, enjoying all the lengthy and well-evaluated comments. But then someone just has to go and disrupt that considered train of thought, by making me spray my beer everywhere ! They DID say it like that :-)

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

Lol

[@GrandmasterFerg]

So far... so good

[@ionasmith1998]

I don’t think Alex meant it like that but when you put it like this it’s so funny 😂😂

[@jaymills1111]

@@GrandmasterFerg 😂😂

[@TheCaptainBeaver]

Amazing talk that felt so refreshing and sad at the same time. James did a wonderful job and so did Alex. I feel so refreshed listening to this and also feel the importance of this issue much more, thanks!

[@diaboloavocado]

This interview is a far more convincing argument for Stop Oil than all the disruptive protests so far. However... would this interview have happened without those disruptive protests?

[@anteeko]

"would this interview have happened without those disruptive protests?" Interview, lecture, discussion on ecology happen all the time?

[@cezar211091]

​@@anteekothat's not his question. You're talking generals.

[@anteeko]

"that's not his question. You're talking generals."@@cezar211091 Well it is totally possible they had interview without those protests.. the proof is interview about ecology happen all the time.

[@Chloe575_]

@@anteekothis interview wouldn’t happen with normal lectures, studies, and discussions. There’s climate activists at every university, but no one really cares

[@anteeko]

"this interview wouldn’t happen with normal lectures, studies, and discussions. There’s climate activists at every university, but no one really cares"@@Chloe575_ Really? I have seen many nothing new in this discourse. Those point have been discussed since 1980 with nearly the same sense of urgency.

[@uku4171]

I'm glad a respectful person will finally have a chat with them. I've never actually seen a good discussion, with them, so this will be a treat

[@rep-vile]

That's the problem with using outrage, you get looped in a conversation about those actions rather than talking about the matter you advocate for. You have to at least be clever enough in turning that attention towards the goal, and keeping the focus on positive impact, I think just for example saying: "It makes sense to hate me and my actions, but it doesn't make sense to hate these goals to save our future, we all should be able achieve this right now". Just something to think about.

[@uku4171]

@@rep-vile What point are you trying to get across that wasn't talked about in the episode? His whole point was that history has shown that pulling attention using disruption does work. I am not well-read on the topic, but given the examples he mentioned, it seems to work.

[@rep-vile]

@@uku4171 I don't recall saying it never works, I'm not sure why you're upset.

[@uku4171]

@@rep-vile What indicated that I'm upset? I just don't understand the point you're making.

[@rep-vile]

@@uku4171 That's fine if you don't understand, you can re-read as much as you need if you wanted to.

[@benthomas9830]

Alex you have become one of my favorite figures in the public intellectual domain. Your intellectual prowess if remarkable and your ability to demonstrate patience and control over your emotions is beyond impressive. Keep doing what your doing =)

[@garrickditlefsen1653]

Everyone be careful. There are a lot of JSO shills on here trying to fluff the positive reviews, harassing people who disagree, soliciting propoganda and trying to recruit people with skewed info, at least one using the name and imahe of Alex himself. Pretty shady stuff, don't trust them

[@Dcoy1999]

He’s reminicint what sam Harris used to be before he got TDS

[@deanought3695]

​@@Dcoy1999 what is TDS?

[@Theactivepsychos]

The climate change issue and protests seem to be the ultimate _trolley problem_

[@PetulantWolf]

Damn this messed my head up

[@strongambitionspowerlifting]

basically this^

[@matt69nice]

Indeed, the only question is around the necessity of the tactics, but in the face of the evidence it is difficult to see an alternative. All other avenues have been exhausted.

[@Theactivepsychos]

@@matt69nicefor example that baby I the car on their way to hospital is the equivalent to the fat man on the bridge ready to be pushed off to flip the switch and save the many.

[@gurigura4457]

As in "Five climate activists are tied to the tracks. One baby is tied to another set of tracks. A train is bearing down on the baby, but you are able to pull a lever such that it hits the climate activists instead." I would say the answer is obvious, in that case.

[@flywire76]

Great conversation. We’ll done to James for not rage-quitting after some mild to moderate push back and probing.

[@FartPanther]

Yes credit where credit is a due😅. I think he had an opportunity for introspection and growth/concession that would have *demonstrated* the process he describes of careful seeking out the best ways forward. As it is he gave no ground even when obviously wrong which meant his pivot to "but here's the most important thing" came across as a tactic rather than the genuine thing that it is and the "we make mistakes all the time" as slightly hollow concession. James approaches it as an interview. Fair enough. But as he's got so much skin in the game he can't easily consider the possibility of changing his mind on anything and this comes across dogmatic. If he had engaged open mindedly on a single thing, then his unchanged, fully-defensible core message would have shone through stronger.

[@BeheadedKamikaze]

@@FartPanther Yes. No less than six times when asked about the incident with the woman on the way to hospital with a medical emergency, he immediately dodged the question by deflecting to statistics. And then to completely ignore Alex's suggestion for a slight policy change after asking for it was quite frustrating to witness. It seems like a reasonable suggestion to have a policy that if someone's life is in imminent danger, get out of the way, and then resume the protest. What good is becoming the villain? Are these people really going to sleep soundly at night, knowing that "for the cause" their actions contributed to someone coming to harm? Reeks of cognitive dissonance. For what it's worth, I agree with the goals but like Alex, I don't know that it justifies the means.

[@isupportthecurrentthing.1514]

You're obsessed with climate change !

[@hannayapelekai1628]

@@BeheadedKamikaze "I don't know that it justifies the means" can't you just look at the data surrounding this topic, in order to figure out whether the means produce satisfactory ends?

[@feihceht656]

​@@BeheadedKamikazeyou mean you're having an emotional reaction, the data and simple utilitarian arithmetic will tell you whether the ends justifies the means

[@joemunkey]

Super interesting to hear from just stop oil in actual proper conversation. I also get angry at the clips, but there's a part of me that feels acutely aware that I am being propagandised to with these clips. They're definitely not as bad as most people think and I could see them as the earliest example of something which will become much much more prevelant and important.

[@_Shadbolt_]

To be honest I think "most people" just think they're very annoying rather than actively bad. But I do agree with your broader point that it's nice to hear their full argument, not just about why they're doing it (because I think most people do agree that we need to do something about climate change) but also why they use the methods they do, that part was particularly enlightening.

[@burgerkiller4438]

❤😢

[@johannesl8305]

i don't know how someone could look at those protesters and those clips and believe that they aren't VERY uncomfortable doing what they are doing. It's not for fun. It's not just for the thrill of annoying you... i would see that without knowing anything about them

[@isiahs9312]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6vUd6SmYrKBqK8si=acT-b7ZNC6eT_HV- You can clearly see the ambulance and them not moving

[@robinthebobin6537]

It's always refreshing to see a good, balanced interview. In a world of short tv interviews designed to cause controversy for clicks, it's nice to see Alex providing a platform where people can speak, with intelligent pushback from the host. Credit to Alex for being a very good interviewer, who isn't afraid to push back against ideas, and to James for staying in the interview despite having his viewpoints challenged. After ahem a certain petulant, pompous c*nt who decided to leave an interview with Alex after being triggered by his questions. Excellent listen!

[@robinthebobin6537]

Side note: I'm not going to talk about my opinions on JSO in a KZbin comment, because it's a complex and nuanced discussion. I have opinions about them, some positive and some negative. Some that I hold quite strongly, and some that I am still debating myself.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

What was good about the interviewer?

[@gavinbolton9551]

@@PhysicsWithoutMagicbleep bloop glop gleebly bleb

[@wasdwasdedsf]

how much has alex spoken out against clown globalists locking down the world over a cough virus destroying the economy? or thebatch of rushed, untested chemicals? or the fact that the electio was provenly stolen? he even seems to be on the disgraced climate bandwagon hes a joke, denying reality in front of his eyes like anyone else whos a leftist these days

[@wasdwasdedsf]

how much has alex spoken out against clown globalists locking down the world over a cough virus destroying the economy? or thebatch of rushed, untested chemicals? or the fact that the electio was provenly stolen? he even seems to be on the disgraced climate bandwagon hes a joke, denying reality in front of his eyes like anyone else whos a leftist these days

[@harman1957]

JUST OIL!!JUST OIL! YOU HAVE SPENT AN HOUR TALKING ABOUT JUST OIL. YOU BROUGHT ME UNDER FALSE PRETENCES I THOUGHT YOU WERE ALSO GOING TO LET ME RUB SOME OIL ON YOUR BACK. RAHHHHHH OILLLLL !!!!! IM BORED AND SICK AND TIREDDD AHHHHH

[@matt69nice]

I hope this meme continues, iconic moment

[@harman1957]

@@matt69nice can I rub oil on your back? I'm going to bike across london

[@MrsBridgette2012]

Alex, it’s amazing how you can pick at a topic till you investigate it to the tiniest degree possible. How you can ask a question and listen intently and still follow up with another question. I mean most people would probably forget the questions that popped up during the conversation, but not you. You go back and continue with more in-depth questions. W2G!

[@josiahlopez5724]

I always appreciate Alex taking the opposite argument into these conversations. So often we just get talking heads with nothing to offer but their unopposed opinion or they are completely stifled by the main talking head.

[@geoffdavids7647]

I think his stance was great, I just wish that he had done what James asked and engaged emotionally for a small segment of the interview. Somewhat disturbing, seeing him so emotionally removed from a topic that affects everything we hold dear so dramatically

[@simonpajger1331]

That is what Alex always does, isn't it? And out of all the guests he had, just Peter Hitchens wasn't ready for that... :D

[@attilatormasi1733]

​@geoffdavids7647 sadly that is not how you do an interview. Because that is how most people do it. They get emotionally attached to their point and it will either become an echo chamber or a shouting contest

[@Lathey22]

It was a really important conversation and bravo to both Alex and the interviewee. I've been struggling myself with the moral conundrum of the actions justifying the means, and this was helpful, and I hope will inspire more talks like this. ❤

[@w0ody16]

Great interview. You actually let the man speak while giving pushback for views that many laymen onlookers would give when looking at the issue. Good clarifications on points.

[@9forMortalMen]

Thanks for having this interview Alex, super interesting even as an American.

[@hanspeter6427]

I found this episode very interesting even though I am German. We have got a similar group doing pretty much the same here. Made me understand their perspective honestly. Crazy times indeed.

[@danthelambboy]

With so many jobs In Germany relying on oil I can imagine it would be hard for Germans to care as they look out for their own short term profits rather than our collective futures

[@xpiggyyyplayz6752]

I presume you're talking about Letzte Generation!

[@88mphDrBrown]

Icht ben guttenhaffen hein die osterwicz. En shoppen ze havershmidt ichtstein von Brune.

[@kunikloy477]

Do you consider using nuclear power a good alternative to oil?

[@bjorneriksson6480]

They are terrorists, stopping oil would kill hundred of millions of people. Oil keeps half the world alive

[@tombaranyai6683]

I was expecting to hear another hysterical Just Stop Oil protester saying nothing i agreed with, but this guy really put his point across well. It's a shame the mainstream media doesn't interview people like him. Credit to Alex aswell for being such a good inteviewer. This channel holds some of the most unbiased interviews i've seen in some time.

[@Hou413]

Climate activist here (non-disruptive but still) - I think it’s worth remembering the point that climate activists do get interviewed by mainstream media, just in 5-min segments like was mentioned. And I can’t speak for all climate activists but the ones I’m around would say pretty much the same things as him. I think social media and mainstream media are really good at mischaracterising protesters as overly emotional/irrational, but tbh we really are just relaying what some of the smartest people in the world have been saying for decades. I’m glad you enjoyed the interview, I thought it was incredibly done as well 😊

[@timmyflipz]

Genuinely a good interview. The group is pretty extreme, but what they are is honest and have a spokesperson who can actually communicate. So props fo them in some regard, and in other regards we don’t have to condone their actions. Certainly an interesting conversation

[@richardellis4636]

Honest ? Interesting use of the word

[@GrantH2606]

I thoroughly enjoyed listening to this discussion and I think the guest, James, was great.

[@lindacarroll5018]

Thanks so much for this interview.. Sincerity & integrity shine through - very respectful & civilised. In the face of humankind’s present critical issues, these discussions are crucial.

[@reubenyoung70]

The best thing the soundbite media cycle has done is this backlash to the soundbite media cycle - all these brilliant long form podcasts with exceptional interviewers like Alex. Huge fan, well done.

[@boianko]

I wish the JSO guy had gone into more detail about what kind of world climate change will bring about. It's borderline apocalyptic and I don't think most people really think about the specific type of suffering that will wash across the world. Mass refugee crisis, worldwide famine, political instability and very likely resource wars. It will be hellish

[@losfogo7149]

That's where people don't want to look. I've been to areas that were flooded this year, helping with my enviromentalism group. People told us that they didn't like us, and that we wouldn't come to help, but when confronted with destruction like that many said they changed their minds. it struck me how this is what is needed. In my small town people are starting to recognize climate change because wild crops that were vital for the economy now are getting rarer, less snow means less ski days, less tourists, droughts ecc...

[@eighteenfiftynine]

I wish he'd evidenced any of it, rather than just continually asserting that "many multi-kajillions will dieeee tho!"

[@elkaki123]

​​@@eighteenfiftynine i mean, that wasn't the focus of the debate, Alex invited him to talk about the effectiveness and ethical implications of the tactics, climate change itself wasn't put on the table in itself Also, by this point I think everyone understands the huge death tolls come from forced migration and disruptions of the food supply chain, and Alex doesn't particularly have the qualifications or, I presume, knowledge in the topic to be able to challenge him in the science and studies around the numbers

[@Pr0HoN]

Refreshing, important and rare interview. Good job, Alex!

[@MalachiMarvin]

One of the best interviews I believe I have seen. Hard pressing yet calm and thoughtful. Well done Alex!

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

What was good about the pressing

[@danlopez.3592]

So nice that nobody interrupted this interview.

[@kingster14444]

Completely off topic but i kinda love how their two personalities are completely different. One is emotive and bright while the other is completely deadpan

[@RicardoMontania]

Who's who

[@albertmaheswara9968]

​@@VideoGamer132-i4zonly from your perspective It clearly isn't to them since they asked

[@albertmaheswara9968]

@@VideoGamer132-i4z what's wrong with being autistic then? I didn't say most people didn't understand, I said, what's wrong with not understanding what's obvious to most? It was pretty obvious what I said and meant, yet you still missed the point. Maybe you're the autistic one, what a clown

[@kingster14444]

@@RicardoMontania Alex O'Connor is the deadpan one and the interviewed person is the expressive one 👍

[@thisisnotagameco]

This is a fantastic interview. I've been an animal rights and climate activist for a while now but have stepped back a little in recent months over concerns about personnel management. It was Alex that first turned me vegan about 4 years ago now, and I've met and chatted with both Alex and James Skeet from this interview during my time in the movement. Both great people. I think a big part of protest ethics that is commonly unseen and unheard is the fact that direct action groups can frequently make the fatal error of mass mobilisation to the point of encouraging some quite vulnerable people to take action, with some quite serious legal consequences that occur as a result. Protest ethics is always focused (perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly) on the people inconvenienced by the protest - rarely does protest ethics look in the other direction, at the ways that people taking part in the protest are encouraged, convinced, and mobilised in the first place. Often this is done totally ethically. Often it isn't. Sadly, there's no oversight, no HR department, no assessment of vulnerability, and quite often no way of providing the legal support that ends up being so sorely needed, unless people stay in the movement and commit to it wholeheartedly. That's where cultic allegations have some weight. This isn't to detract from the movements at all, but simply to add nuance to the conversation. Thanks to Alex and Skeet for a fantastic conversation!

[@Sovvyy]

I agree with your thoughts here. I've been to a few JSO meetings and the activists are incredible, but you're correct in there isn't much to catch cases of vulnerable activists. Considering the topic, I think mental health is a large part of that conversation. The activist where I am support each other, down to daily life things, however it takes expertise to navigate more vulnerable cases. It's an interesting point, as making the choice to protest, doesn't necessarily entail a perceived culpability.

[@QuinnArgo]

This is a genuinely great point and something I haven't really considered much from this perspective.

[@off-labelbotanist5355]

It just seems like people who have experienced loss and who are in a fragile state are in a better place to understand what's at stake.

[@BWGmedia]

@@off-labelbotanist5355 As they go to get their morning coffee flown in from out of country in single use cups. Give me a break, half of these peeps are posh self hating rich kids

[@blubaylon]

How did you manage to meet both of them? How do I start becoming an activist?

[@davidknackmann]

i think its quite interesting that the point of braitain not having democracy wasn't further discussed. So many are aware of the extent of power special interests hold in "democratic" political systems but James putting it so bluntly was refreshing and I suppose it ought to be done more often. I was very sympathetic to the cause of just stop oil but having the whole reasoning behind their operations stated in such clear terms makes me want to support/join them.

[@BWGmedia]

Perhaps I just view it differently but that came off as a cowardly answer that naively simplifies reality and avoids the question he was being directly asked. It seems like he was avoiding saying ‘yes if the majority disagrees we will decide for them. We know better’ because when asked he goes off ‘well we already don’t live in a democracy…’ before emphasizing that democracy is important for HIM, personally. The groups open stance on democracy is a little more radical…

[@troposa]

Also I like to remind myself that most people (like James) are not used to the type of intellectual philosophical knots that many of Alex's viewers enjoy. So we can't expect him to have considered the moral gymnastics we are accustomed to. I think Alex gets that but pushes as hard as he can while not being an intellectual bully.

[@montychong-walden6564]

True, to a large degree, but there are far too many questions on speculative narratives. The "baby in the car" scene is highly suspicious, as if it were life threatening, she would have an ambulance, not be driving her baby to the hospital, so likely it was a bluff. He asks far too many "what if.." questions that have no bearing on the conversation, which really is the "why?" of the situation. So, after a while, it gets a bit tiresome.

[@angusmcculloch6653]

On the contrary. People from organizations like this should be subjected to the exact same intellectual and philosophical rigor as anyone else. And when their answers aren't up to part (and this person's was not), they should realize it. Stop moving the goal posts just because you agree with an organization's overall objective.

[@angusmcculloch6653]

@@montychong-walden6564 Super incorrect re: getting an ambulance. Maybe the emergency began in the car. Maybe it was going to take too long for an ambulance to get there. There are any number of reasons for people to be transporting an emergency patient in their private vehicle, so don't you dare spread misinformation with regards to that. Don't you dare.

[@jazzman2516]

@@angusmcculloch6653correct.

[@montychong-walden6564]

@@angusmcculloch6653 Exactly my point. There is no intellectual or philosophical rigour in repeating the same question on a truly hypothetical set of conditions. We could play the speculation game all day long, especially as it pertains to the eventual outcomes of continuing to expand the O&G industry and the massive dangers this poses to more than one person with child in car. The goal posts are way off, and set that way by the politicians and O&G execs, so that they have people confused and arguing about all the small things and missing the forests of danger for the trees of concern.

[@RazorbackPT]

I wished you had asked about metrics. How do they keep score if the movement is having the impact they want or hurting their objectives.

[@mymyscellany]

great point

[@gunterdantrimont5930]

like any cult they will always claim success

[@skeptyka]

Yeah, I feel like Alex likes to dwelve into infinitely many moral dillemas which make no difference and then forgets about the bigger, actually useful picture

[@rokingfrost8446]

From the conversation they dont care. it seem to me that their angle is any publicity is good publicity. but on climate change topics. that is just i feel counterproductive.

[@gunterdantrimont5930]

@@skeptykathe bigger picture is, that in Germany more and more people are voting right wingers now who deny human caused climate change. Repelling people from a cause they formerly supported does not help at all. To me this is the simple bigger picture.

[@chrisrothove8050]

I love that Alex can interview someone, make his own opinion clear, and yet still facilitate and allow the interview itself to not take on his own position. Truly allowing people to come to their own conclusions. How novel.

[@spiral-m]

Except repeating "destroying paintings" several times well after it had been established (in his own words) that paintings had not been destroyed, and that the activist knew they wouldn't cause much damage beforehand. A touch of typical framing. However, we are all human and he did a pretty good job in some ways.

[@GrantH2606]

@@spiral-m He also kept bringing up the situation with the baby when James had established several times that, as outrageous as the situation was, he just wasn't there to give a detailed account of exactly how it was handled

[@stardust4001]

​@@spiral-m He is still pretty young and doing excellent so more maturity will come with experience and age.

[@5353Jumper]

Somehow we need an organization doing journalistic oversight. Licensing the use of words like "journalist, news, editorial" in a program title. And somehow find a way to fund journalism that does not create corporate/industrial favoritism, bow to special interest groups, beholden to the party in power, or create confirmation bias information silos. This kind of journalism is too rare.

[@crumbtember]

i would say alex doesn't really make his opinion clear at all, which i frankly don't like. i think he is good in a way, i like him, and suspect i agree with him a lot, but he does not make his opinion clear. my belief that i agree with him is speculative. he tries and succeeds at being neutral to an extent that raises weird questions for me about how to interpret.

[@divinebonkers]

i do have a question regarding the medical emergencies during protests, that, if there was a natural calamity, because of climate change, which was directly due to governments not stopping oil companies, that caused a huge sink role/ hurricane / whatever that caused a huge traffic jam, instead of the just oil protestors, would the govt not be responsible for the death of that child stuck in the traffic jam or people that died due to this catastrophe? If yes, then could the protests and road blocks that cause medical emergencies to not be addressed in time, be attributed to the government's lack of action?

[@anthonynorman7545]

I'm impressed by the rhetorical and sociological knowledge on display.

[@John.Christopher]

😂😂😂

[@danmurraypiano]

I have to say this has definitely had a positive impact on my impression of this organisation, he handled the questions well and also was not as retaliatory and unlikeable as I have seen him previously. I think its important to do more long form discussions like this on this topic. Liked Alexs line of questioning too, but would like to see a future discussion on the actual climate science that goes passed the moral/ethical debate around just stop oils tactics

[@GreenLarsen]

That is what actually surprised me. Alex a few times mention that he have not had the option to read a book produced by JSO. But considering that the actions by JSO are based on the scientific materiel in works like "WMO United in Science 2023" report by the UN. Why did he not read that? Is having a basic understanding of the scope of any problem not requirement before you can even start having the conversation taking place here?

[@spiral-m]

@@GreenLarsen he is uninformed. Maybe he hasn't had the time but I don't think he really grasps the severity of the situation.

[@BDnevernind]

Alex's obsession with the semantics discussion around the term genocide was perplexing. He seems to want to win these arguments more than he wants his audience to learn anything relevant. Thankfully the guest tried to keep the discussion on track.

[@danmurraypiano]

@@marcosolo6491 compared to how I have seen him previously answer questions 😂

[@ubayyd]

Surprisingly pleasant and insightful interview.

[@nielsholmlassen8275]

Just gotta give so much credit to alex for the brilliant questions too

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

Brilliant? He just said stuff like “why wouldn’t you kill people if that was effective?” Just a bunch of dumb hypotheticals, the answers to which are obvious

[@Meowch3]

​@@PhysicsWithoutMagic In a discussion of ethics, we're often interested not just in the answer itself but the justification of it.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@Meowch3 Duh. The justification is obvious: either (1) I don’t like killing/think it’s bad (worse than other stuff), or (2) I don’t think it’s an effective strategy. Both of these things the guest - entirely predictably - said.

[@eddiebaby22]

Well done guys! Interesting conversation 👍

[@NoahPurdyFR]

This is the best way to interview people.

[@spud2576]

I think both of these guys did a great job here. I agree with other comments that Alex could have engaged more emotionally with what was happening, but the questions he was asking was pretty hard hitting. I think they put Skeet in a difficult position as a responder, but I think he did really well answering while also staying on track and emphasising the magnitude of the trolley problem we find ourselves in

[@davidgreen424]

Yes Alex looked totally unmoved when he heard about the fate of humanity and all living things , ignoring that point , then responding passionately about the semantics of the word genocide.

[@ahmetsaidalkur50]

@@davidgreen424 yeah now that you mention it that bit felt really awkward, later alex explained himself by saying listeners might be distracted by the apparent misuse of the word but didnt manage to quite get his point across for skeet it was probably more like alex just being hang up on semantics while alex was probably just trying to help the guy out

[@ElevenEightNate]

@@ahmetsaidalkur50 it's not just "semantics" when an entire belief system has been built around the use of certain words to achieve their goals. I'm a environmental scientist working in the energy and climate sector (have been since 2012), and the use of the word "genocide" regarding the government's action (or lack thereof) on the issue of climate change ultimately just cheapens the message and discredits those of us that are on the ground engineering practical solutions. Calling it "genocide" makes me understand why so many people don't take the activists' side of this argument seriously.

[@ahah86]

KZbin and podcast nowadays are doing much better job than any mainstream media.

[@Gjermund-Sivertsen]

Wow. Good interview without annoying interruptions. I think it was fine that you did not knew the ups and downs about your interocular.

[@jakeu9623]

Just stop oil frustrate me. Perhaps because of what I see and read. But this doesn't frustrate me. A medium for open conversation and exploration. We need more channels like this!

[@glebjohnson9057]

The cultural hegemony is rigged for you to be frustrated, this is by design. Consider multiple sources and what the people actually have to say, it changes a lot.

[@hannayapelekai1628]

this interview wouldn't have happened without Just Stop Oil.

[@pneumonoultramicroscopicsi4065]

While i admire the intentions, i think it's naive and only superficially good, if you 'just stop oil' a lot of people around the world will suffer from the economical consequences, it's impossible to suddenly move away from oil, only a progressive transition is possible and even that is quite hard. Considering what i just said, you're not saving anything or anyone by suddenly moving away from oil, i think it's evil to ignore the consequences of such actions, and no, environmentalism isn't an excuse, if we keep going down that rabbit hole, humans are better off extinct, that way the environment is surely saved (until the next big asteroid hits the earth at least) and i really can't agree with this, I'm only for preserving the environment in a way that's mutually beneficial for everyone, not to the detriment of my life.

[@aguerrero]

I found the interview to be very informative, and a chance to better understand JSO and the broader environmental movement strategies. Thank you. James and Alex had a good back and forth. It wasn't easy at times, but I think you both made an extraordinary effort to debate the issues, the trade offs, the options available, the short and long term consequences of those options and risks, the ethical concerns associated with them, the use of language. Bravo. It's an important issue that affects us all.

[@setharnaud7869]

It's only after listening to Just Stop Oil confront genuine challenges to their methods that I've come to somewhat understand their actions.

[@betadecay6503]

And what have they achieved considering the laws just passed by our government? Absolutely nothing. Their actions are not justified because they're not effective in the slightest

[@ResevoirGod]

⁠@@betadecay6503You could say that about all forms of protest. Besides, how long have they been at it? How long did it take the Civil Rights Movement?

[@CarlosRodriguez-dh7mm]

​@@betadecay6503I think a part of their activism is about changing the minds of lay people. Maybe they didn't get their PM to make any changes today, but the voters are suddenly confronted with the question "Why do I care more about a painting than I do about global catastrophe?" That's certainly how I changed my mind about them

[@jamontoast1414]

did you not listen to the interview? @@betadecay6503

[@andreasvox8068]

@@betadecay6503 And what will those laws achieve? If they disable protests like JSO they'll just encourage other groups to become more violent. Because if people are convinced that the current government(s) kill the planet and cause 200 million deaths, you better talk to them and convince them you do everything to avoid that outcome.

[@therchas]

May I say that man’s spice rack is amazing. As an American I ask is that a Landry washer in his kitchen? Or is it a dish washer that looks weird?

[@mrscolumbo4704]

Most UK homes have a washing machine in the kitchen because there isn't anywhere else to put it unless there is a utility room or cellar. 🇬🇧

[@neptunethemystic]

May they succeed in their goal!!

[@GrandmasterFerg]

Eww

[@vulkanofnocturne]

JSO annoys me but he has an Emperor poster back there so I have to give him some leeway.

[@danielwatson4110]

Great interview. I appreciated that Simon was given opportunity to justify actions taken by Just Stop Oil. Alex gave clear points of concern and allowed Simon fair opportunity to respond. I would have liked to hear more about policies around emergency situation, blue light is good, but what are the internal recommendations to emergencies like the exanple of the mother wanting to get through with her child going to hospital. It would be great to see another interview going into Just Stop Oil's recommendations for policy change and see them similarly pushed back on by Alex. Thanks for the conversation 👍👍

[@heatheroverton5932]

I echo that this is the first time I've been able to hear a balanced argument with a just stop oil representative. Firm but fair, great job, well done. The point of having no fixed policy on emergencies outside of the blue lights rule is an important one for them to address and would serve them well when engaging in this specific topic of disruption in future. I would encourage just stop oil to engage in more long form interviews/discussions/debates and put them online. After watching this, I tried to find more on KZbin and was only provided with mainly daily mail "shorts" of hostile interactions with the public or 10 minute interviews with TV personalities which follow exactly the format James outlined. The long form formats could be clipped and released as shorts to appeal to the short form media many young people engage with.

[@MeandmySara]

I am shocked to say, this was fairly convincing for me. I will need to read more on how dire the situation is to understand, but if what James is saying is true, I see no impediment to understanding and justifying the actions this group takes. I was disgusted by the soup on the painting at first too... Now I see how pearl-clutching that is considering the painting wasn't damaged at all and particularly considering the gravity of the issue they're fighting for awareness of.

[@isaacperalvillaverde1986]

Very dire indeed. Once you engage with it emotionally, everything becomes much more clear. A change of the system is needed

[@DisgruntledPeasant]

What has become very apparent to me is how much the media has manipulated my own perception of JSO. You see these "petty" protests with teens sitting in roads and it's easy to think "why don't they do something against the people who are actually to blame"... And you don't hear about the actions like the one this guy got arrested for. The media truly is owned by the opposition, and they are willing to distort the truth to deceive us on this issue.

[@snappybean]

Extremists always use emotional arguments to justify thier actions. It is a powerful, though dishonest, technique that can attract others susceptible to emotional manipulation.

[@stevenmathews7621]

or none of it is true, and you are now a useful idiots 👏 well done just because the screen says it's so, doen't make it so You might wanna learn to use that thing between your ears

[@Sheldinho4]

It’s not dire in the slightest don’t worry

[@bayesian0.0]

As a canadian who had only distantly heard of the events caused by this org, I had assumed that group was a bunch of virtue signalling teens trying to get attention for teenager reasons. (In fact i didnt know the soup in the art museum and the cars getting blocked were connected at all). So to see this guy explain the calculus, in a way that seems more sane than almost anyone I’m used to talking to, is remarkable and extremely surprising. Basically a utilitarian argument for the negative attention being good attention for the more moderate factions on the issue? That is brilliant. I’m of course epistemically uncertain whether the research does support this and whether, in expectation, this does have a positive impact on the issue, but that is better than my previous position, which was just an assumption that these people were almost certainly being an embarrassement and harmful to righteous movements! Thanks for the podcast :p

[@intetx]

It was definitely pushed by the bought media in a way to make it seem these are just virtue signaling teenagers. There is a certain air of doing things among such news.

[@catStone92]

I will always say this on this topic. People only find acceptable the type of activism that they can ignore. Anything that forces people to stop and take stock of what's happening and anything that gets people talking about it is basically good for the movement.

[@betadecay6503]

He didn't offer a single rationalisation for their actions. He alluded to thought going into the actions but he never gave an example of any deep thought. "Duur let's throw soup at art" is their idea of deep intellectual consideration. They are virtue-signalling idiots who need to feel important. He admitted to jumping from one cause to another, he just wants to be part of a radical group, he doesn't actually give a fuck about the issue. How many times did he mention the laws just passed on fossil fuels proving that their actions are complete and utter failures? They're achieving nothing but disruption and harm to the public. They are essentially a non-violent terrorist organisation and nothing more.

[@andresgarciacastro1783]

"The media only talk about you if they can vilify you" sums it up.

[@BWGmedia]

@@catStone92are you sure about that? ANYTHING? Like kidnapping people or murdering people? Sure terrorism gets people talking…but is that really good for your movement or your cause? I’d caution use of the word ANYTHING

[@sunflowerbadger]

Fantastic interview. Philosophizing about the issue of needing drastic action on the climate crisis does need to be done, but it did remind me a lot of the scene in the Life of Brian where the People's Front of Judea are emphatically stating the need for action whilst never managing to do a thing. I hope that, outside of your podcast, you are committed to helping save the planet, Alex.

[@helloitsnicko]

Hey, new viewer here. Just wanted to say this; your objective interview style is a breath of fresh air in a world of noise. Cheers.

[@caseh4235]

As much as I find these protests irritating when I am out in London, I imagine I would find 45°C summers, lack of crops and the deaths of millions due to climate crises a tad bit more irritating…

[@kunikloy477]

The problem is, according to him, it will take years maybe decades to gain popularity and started working. But also according to him, if we don't stop it right now, the world is doomed.

[@isupportthecurrentthing.1514]

You assume that these tactics are working . Perhaps they're having the opposite effect.

[@The-Rest-of-Us]

Not like their actions are doing anything against the fundamental problem.

[@caseh4235]

@@kunikloy477 Correct. That means we need to do something drastic ASAP because it’s obvious conventional methods do not work. We can’t just wait around for the planet to become inhospitable.

[@isupportthecurrentthing.1514]

@caseh4235 There are many reasons why the planet may become inhospitable. Why should we focus on this threat rather than nuclear war ? Nuclear war is far more devastating ,and the solutions are viable , simple, and in everyone's interest. Are you just gonna sit there doing nothing about it ?

[@DaboooogA]

Great discussion thanks

[@MateriaKeeper]

A really fair and respectful conversation as always, Alex. Personally I would genuinely like to hear more of the science behind their movement, and also ask them why there aren't more 'well-known' people from the scientific community appearing in the media representing their position (unless I've missed those interviews).

[@damianbylightning6823]

Cos the evidence says they're talking bollocks!

[@DonutOfNinja]

​@@damianbylightning6823you mean all the climate research? Brilliant mate

[@inajosmood]

There's quite a number of climate scientists in the media that support the urgency of.the case JSO or XR make

[@Beer_Dad1975]

Well obviously reducing our use of fossil fuel is imperative - but they need to target the right fuel - i.e. one we can actually fix right now - i.e. coal. We can eliminate our dependence on coal, we have the technology & resources right now - it would cost trillions and take decades & possibly require people to stop their irrational fear of nuclear power - but it is achievable, and would in fact make a bigger impact on greenhouse gas emissions than eliminating oil. We CAN'T do this for oil - we can *slightly* reduce our dependence on it, but we don't have the technology or resources to eliminate it.

[@just-stop-oil]

Peter Kalmus, Mark Maslin, James Dyke, Julia Steinberger and many others support both the demand and the tactics.

[@Caennuck]

I can't help but notice a tonne of plastic appliances and containers in his kitchen. I guess change doesn't start at home.

[@solaire7046]

I dont think anyone in this comment section, including Alex here, really understands how dependent the entire world and most of your immediate ammenities and many MANY more scarelcely thought of little things depends on oil and plastic. As an engineer i can tell you that if you look around your room, effectivly 99.999% of what you see is made with plastic parts or has plastic involved in the production process. Things normal people dont even think about, like lubricant for pretty much any mechanical machine.. these oil based conpounds are ESSENTIAL for any advantage we have in this age over a pre-industrial revolution society.

[@etrs]

Is this guy allergic to giving a direct answer or something? All of your questions were perfectly clearly stated, and he weaseled his way around giving a genuine answer almost every time. I immediately distrust the honesty of any person who can't engage with a hypothetical. Thanks for the interview, this stuff illuminates the nature of these people further than anything I've yet seen.

[@AntiTekk]

Yeah, I think it’s just an inherent problem of him representing the organization and not his own views necessarily. Even if Alex showed some problem with ethical consistency in “Just Oils”/This Guys’ views, he would have to stick to the position I mean he’d be fired and feel like he betrayed his group if he conceded on important points

[@etrs]

@@sjewitt22 I am regretful that I am not enlightened to thine knowledge, O great wise one. I shall repent for the sins for I have committed

[@Notalloldpeople]

I don't disagree with his cause but his unwillingness to deal with the specific sick baby scenario was disingenuously hid behind a smokescreen of hypotheticals - similar to the Peter Hitchens tripe. He could have said that JSO would not knowingly prevent someone accessing urgent necessary medical attention. If he can't say that, then JSO must accept that people have the right to assume that the reverse is true and its tactics are not non violent. @@sjewitt22

[@mikeelliott886]

Thanks for saving me from watching beyond the halfway point. Was already getting frustrated with the inability to respond to the question directly. Ironic for a Just Stop Oil spokesperson to be incapable of giving anything besides a "politician's" answer!

[@HowManyToasters]

wrong. even people who are concerned with climate change hate these braindead "activists". they do literally nothing to further the cause they proport to care so dearly about, in fact they actively harm it. bunch of virtue signaling rich kids, none of them actually care about the environment, they just want the social status of being on the 'good side'@@sjewitt22

[@AvianRap]

Almost everything he said should justify violence. Would he not prevent a "genocide" using violence? Weak pushback unfortunately.

[@garrickditlefsen1653]

Everyone be careful. There are a lot of JSO shills on here trying to fluff the positive reviews, harassing people who disagree, soliciting propoganda and trying to recruit people with skewed info, at least one using the name and imahe of Alex himself. Pretty shady stuff, don't trust them

[@AttarProductions]

Excellent interview, I must say. Glad questions like these were posed, and the responses carefully tendered.

[@garrickditlefsen1653]

Everyone be careful. There are a lot of JSO shills on here trying to fluff the positive reviews, harassing people who disagree, soliciting propoganda and trying to recruit people with skewed info, at least one using the name and image of Alex himself. Pretty shady stuff, don't trust them

[@ryanxvx]

Spotted that Emperor poster right away.

[@NeneChan203]

Loved hearing a deep conversation from both perspectives. It's really a difficult topic to deal with, and I think I can agree with both Alex and James on various points. Excellent interview and excellent food for though, well done Alex.

[@definitelynotcole]

Alex, as to the reason why I do not believe the "EXAMPLE" (not the child) of the endangered child has any relation to or weight in this discussion is because anyone on the road puts children in the exact same risk. Anyone who supports the construction of these roads and chooses to use them puts children in the exact same risk. Meanwhile, by comparison to the activity they're interrupting (road usage) these protesters put a single child at risk in comparison to thousands of child deaths/major injurys a year due to cars. You can argue that these deaths are due primarily to irresponsible actions by irresponsible drivers but if you take that approach then just as the protesters are being held accountable for the actions of a few, drivers should be held accountable on the same ethical grounds.

[@Natalie-sr8hm]

As someone who is cautiously positive about Just Stop Oil and similar movements that I was very glad to hear this conversation and the perspectives from James here. I was a little disappointed with James not being able to fully dive into some of the moral hypothetical nuances, but I think we have to understand that James is both potentially not well versed in how to go about such discussions and we shouldn’t expect most people to be, and that his objectives in this conversation may not have been to clarify those things anyways hence his focus was elsewhere. I was also a little disappointed in Alex for not knowing and engaging so much about how things like the civil rights movement were at times incredibly unpopular, and favorable opinions of them have taken a lot of time to develop, something James mentioned and talked about quite a bit. At the time the civil rights protests were seen by many as violet, disruptive, ugly, and terrible, including MLK, and the same sort of opinion shift could very well happen with just stop oil over time. Was very glad to listen overall and found it very informative and assuring of their cause.

[@angusmcculloch6653]

And just like that, we see that everyone is a Machiavellian. The end justifies the means or, more accurately to what Machiavelli wrote, while the act accuses the result excuses. Under this person's reasoning, what can't I do because Situation X is just so extreme? I get enough people to agree with me, and what act could not be excused? We have to take extreme actions, because we believe this is an extreme threat.

[@Natalie-sr8hm]

@@angusmcculloch6653 Local man has stroke because he learned utilitarians exist. But on a more serious note, I get the impression this is some expression of disgust for JSO and their supporters but I could be wrong. I think just because the ends justify the means doesn't mean we cant find better means that harm less people, and I think most people who aren't weird heartless moral objectivists agree with me. It just so happens that just stop oil has data backing up that their means are some of the most effective for their end, and they haven't done much real harm to anyone. Would a means that required killing a million people to save the whole planet be justifiable? I say yes, but I also think it's well worth, and morally far better to try and find the means that doesn't require that level of harm. I think most people intuit some version of this sort of thing on some level even if they don't have the language to describe it. To paint this whole thing as deceitful and with no morals is to bolster those who would actually lie to us about a real threat until we would die so they could be rich.

[@angusmcculloch6653]

@@Natalie-sr8hm I want to thank you for your honest response. I thank you for admitting you would support killing at least 1 million people for an end you considered important enough (out of curiosity, are you willing to volunteer to be one of the million who die?). I really enjoyed when you attempted to poison the well ("most people who aren't weird heartless moral objectivists agree with me") and then supported killing 1 million people to reach an end you considered important enough. Another badge of honor for "utilitarians" LOL.

[@angusmcculloch6653]

@@Natalie-sr8hm Oh, I meant to ask, these million people who would die, would you only accept people who volunteered to die, or are you willing to accept means in which people died against their will?

[@Natalie-sr8hm]

@@angusmcculloch6653 I think you should be able to basically figure out from what I wrote that whereas I would find volunteers heavily preferable, both would be acceptable, beit I would want to find solutions that don't require such a cost instead if possible. I value both wellbeing and autonomy in a utilitarian sense, and I am deeply uncomfortable with forcibly taking life in general. It'd be crazy to be in a situation where you would press a button to kill a million and save the planet. In the same sense if given such a button to press and you didn't I would see that as the same action as pressing a button that kills the planet and therefore all people. I would say that this whole thing is a ridiculous hypothetical, it on many levels is, but if the climate continues to be neglected millions will suffer, many already are. I am happy to say that I don't think ending climate change is going to require intentionally ending lives, but it seems to be the case that allowing it to happen has already doomed a large number of people.

[@elbetzio]

Good interview. Ultimately though they must accept responsibility if someone's injured or dies because of a deliberate blockage by JSO. It seems their only defence is "it hasn't so far".

[@isiahs9312]

The mantra of the meth addict

[@braddles5639]

I can't believe the number of people who seem impressed by his evasive and scripted answers. Look at his answer about the mother being delayed taking her child to the hospital (acknowledging we don't know if she was telling the truth or not). He went straight to his scripted response and had to be brought back to specifics by Alex and he still dodged the answer.

[@christopherhitchens163]

Last episode will surely go down as the greatest on this channel

[@JaguarBST]

The one where Peter threw a temper tantrum and walked out?

[@JohnPopcorn06]

i am waiting for the next episode

[@personofinterest8731]

Yes. Will Peter man up and apologise, or will he give Alex another chance? Manbaby.

[@jjl8456]

Beautiful conversation. Alex is really painting the imagery here. I never heard of them until today yet I now know the way they think and what they have done. The art piece is also scary as lost art is lost art. The baby scenario will live in my spirit for long. The imagery. Hi Alex it is JJL, your newest member.

[@pawys5792]

We will lose all art if we dont stop climate change.

[@santiagocingolani2455]

How did you comment 9 days ago? Was the video private?

[@MiloMay]

@@santiagocingolani2455 patreon

[@hitchen1]

@@santiagocingolani2455 I guess they got access from patreon early?

[@itsviney]

So good to see a calm, in-depth interview with JSO. One thing I wish had been asked regarding the hypothetical situation with a parent trying to get their child to hospital for a medical emergency: If the disruption and potential harm to the disrupted is justified by the urgency of the cause, if that parent decided to drive through the crowd of protesters to get to the hospital, would the harm caused to the protesters also be justified/acceptable collateral for the greater good? I assume he would need to say yes, but given the attitude some motorists seem to have to the group, it could be taken as a dangerous green light.

[@TheCuggsmeister]

My two points, for what it's worth. Firstly, I'm still not convinced that annoying the hell out of the general population that you want to support you is the best way to garner backing for the organisation that you represent. It may get you media coverage but if that media coverage amounts to the few minute interviews and news pieces James mentioned and they misrepresent what you stand for within those things, then isn't the overall outcome negative rather than positively raising awareness? Secondly, when I've looked into this subject in the past and looked at international statistics, while we or other Western countries may not be perfect or even on target to net zero carbon emissions, we are way ahead of the field compared to places like China or India. In other words, the UK could go to zero carbon emissions overnight and it would still have practically zero impact on the climate change trajectory. Getting China, for example, to reduce emissions by 10% would do more to help slow down climate change than the UK taking those extra steps James is fighting for. So it seems to me that time would be better spent protesting against the emissions of countries like China or India and our reliance upon their carbon heavily produced products than pushing for even more stringent regulations on a tiny country like the UK.

[@scaryperi3051]

Bigotry of low expectations. We expect Western countries to comply with such standards and lead the way, but non-western countries get a free pass. Same story, different language.

[@wolfdwarf]

Clearly obsessed with drugs

[@jonathanrabbitt]

I'm finding it intriguing to juxtapose the discussions of "violence" and the discussion of "genocide". One word that hasn't been used is "recklessness" or "reckless disregard". One could accuse the government of reckless disregard for the potential/forecast consequences of continued fossil fuel use, but this activist is fine in ascribing the motive of genocide (which is a deliberate act that has a degree of intentionality orders of magnitude greater than recklessness), but won't acknowledge Stop Oil's actions are no more or less reckless than the government's policy. Can we just assert that Stop Oil is "violent" using the same poetic license he uses with the word "genocide"? I also wonder why these types never consider the unintended(?) consequences of implementing a "Just Stop Oil" policy. It seems to be borne of a very ego-centric anxiety. Humanity will likely adapt and survive and if it doesn't, the world will still orbit the sun and who will be around to give a shit?

[@NoahPurdyFR]

As somebody who is very concerned about the climate I absolutely despise Just Stop Oil's campaigns, respectfully.

[@tannerman46]

What should they do instead?

[@tomthecasual5337]

@@tannerman46 thats the right question. i always feel like most people essentially say "ok thats fine that you warn us of what is to come, but do it in that corner where you don't bother us, please" this is what scientists and activists have been doing for atleast 40 years. and they have been mostly ignored by the masses for 40 years.

[@glorytoarstotzka330]

while waiting at the bus station, a friend of mine popped out of nowhere and asked me what I was watching. I told him I was watching a podcast about controversial topics, but it was within reason

[@miti8523]

The problem is that getting off oil isn’t a problem of politics, but one of engineering. Working as an electrical engineer in power distribution made me realise that “solar and wind” isn’t a solution at this point in time. Keep in mind, this is in Australia where solar and wind are arguably the easiest to implement. We do not have battery technology that can store days worth of energy for entire cities, meaning that there’s no potential for a 100% renewables solution without catastrophic power quality issues or crazy government regulation (i.e., you can’t use air conditioning in the middle of summer as the power demand would exceed the available supply). We’ll let the kids discuss the uninteresting philosophical and political side of climate change, while us adults in the engineering world will keep exploring solutions which are actually realistic.

[@bobjoneswof]

This is a good point. It's no fun thinking about the practical elements to these ideas, it's much easier to discuss and complain.

[@logickedmazimoon6001]

As another engineer, I dont think you should completely dismiss the role of politics in this or any part of any project you may have. If we were to implement every practical and forward thinking solution without politics, we'd already have the effects of anthropogenic climate change mitigated. Politics have held back a lot of efforts to cut back on wasteful emissions due to politics not out of practicality but by self interest. You know as well as I that a lot of the times, our word gets overidden often because of politics. Also, I think the purpose of this movement is to more get the government doing something rather than eliminating oil all together, even though their slogan may say "just stop oil" slogans usually are eye-catching, not nuanced.

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

Great questions from Alex. Too bad James didn't answer a single one of them.

[@BleepBlop-rh9lm]

He is a fanatic and probably getting paid good by whoever is funding them. They have zero scientific proof.

[@geoffdavids7647]

I think part of the problem was that Alex was trying to get James tied down in absolute statements about hypotheticals. James was recognising that this type of nitpicking is wholly unhelpful to what the reality of climate change is like, connecting with that properly, and realising how important it is that we do something. You are counting ants on the ground while a herd of rhinos stampedes towards you. Perhaps a better strategy, one that would feel more honest but still communicate the needed points, could be if the interviewee explains they will first answer the question directly, but then subsequently explain why it isn't a useful question, why it distracts from the important stuff.

[@gokulnaththeboss08]

​@@geoffdavids7647i think he didn't even like that kind of protest personally and just don't want to picture bad about the movement volunteers.whatever the methods of they are using currently is ineffective and we all know for that fact.they should own that this kind of protest is bad and try to change the strategy instead of telling them they have exhausted everything

[@Drenwickification]

I’m halfway through this interview and no closer to supporting these guys. He keeps talking about how their tactics are effective but didn’t the exact same thing happen a few years ago but the signs read ‘insulate Britain’ - if the tactics are effective then what results did the insulate Britain campaign yield? I think also when he talks about the aim of their actions being to spark public debate etc… I mean climate change isn’t something that people haven’t been aware of, is it? It’s been one of the top political issues for a long time now, long before just stop oil arrived. So how useful is it to just try and promote the issues around the environment? I think also that their focus on stopping production of oil is short sighted. If the uk stops producing oil, that doesn’t magically mean we will stop using it, just that more will have to be sourced elsewhere. Why not instead focus on ways in which usage of oil can be reduced so there’s not even a financial incentive to drill for it?

[@bankmanager]

To be fair, labour who are likely to form the next government, have pledged to aggressively insulate British homes as a result.

[@luisecmf]

I think a key point is that people who think protesters are allowed to inconvenience, disrupt or even damage public/private property only hold that position for causes they agree with. Would you applaud anti-vaxxers blocking traffic for hours? What about anti-abortion protesters damaging museums?

[@Zahlenteufel1]

Phantastic questions and respectful, non-escalatory pushback! Good job, as usual, Alex :)

[@ryon3989]

I’m not sure the violence question was addressed well enough. If someone was blocking your right of passage (sitting in front of your car), is that non-violence? Or what if they punctured everyone’s car tyres? Is that violence? If damage to property is violence, shouldn’t preventing someone from utilising their property to get from A to B also be considered violence?

[@andrewdixon2730]

I guess that is where the law finds a difference between violence and nuisance. Nuisance is normally not criminal but results in damages being paid

[@natzos6372]

That would only be a reaction to a much greater violence which would make it self defense

[@ryon3989]

⁠@@andrewdixon2730I see. I just wonder when nuisance becomes violence. If I block your only house door, preventing you from leaving, is that nuisance rather than violence? I feel like me swearing at someone is nuisance (annoying) but not something to be criminal. However, blocking someone’s right of passage is not allowing them to use their own body (‘my body my choice’) and therefore this seems to imply it is violence. In this sense, maybe it’s semantics, nuisance shouldn’t require damages to be paid- in reality though most legally defined nuisances are actually acts of violence, it would seem (imo). Especially when nuisance includes causing “injury” - seems so stupid to make that different from violence.. causing someone injury is definitely violence, right? Seems like the laws are a bit silly in that regard

[@ryon3989]

@@natzos6372can you clarify what you mean- self defence from which party?

[@andrewdixon2730]

Legally, nuisance isn't something that is 'annoying' it is preventing somebody from enjoying property 'reasonably'. When it comes to injury, the difference between violence and nuisance is generally intent. I don't really see any reason why you would want to broaden the scope of violence to include these things, they are both punishable offences and I see a clear distinction between the two. @@ryon3989

[@TheFranchfry]

Another great episode. Alex, the production quality continues to be top-tier!

[@SmartAss4123]

I understand what their goal is. But the problem is that regular people suffer for their activities. People starve, go cold, and suffer in poverty without cheap affordable energy. Until we get a cheap and versatile energy source that is easy to transport, store, and use interchangeably as oil and gas we cant afford not to use them for the worlds living standards to keep people happy and safe. It's not that I want fossil fuels. But we dont have a real replacement yet that actually can be used across the board with the way we live. But big businesses is a problem. But you dont endanger regular people to get at them. Thats what creates less support and ultimately arms everyone agaisnt you and create even more support for. big buisnesses.

[@markmyers905]

Perhaps Just Stop Oil could take a bit of advice from Ganghi, who once said, "In placing civil disobedience before constructive work, I was wrong, and I did not profit by the Himalayan blunder that I had committed." just sayin...

[@TimOrton-z9n]

How eloquent and calmly sophisticated Alex’s questioning was. Also it was a mature discussion without too many circles in the chat..Shame that Juststopoil have such desperation in their actions including in this interview where there is blatant lies about nonviolence occurring. Now, all around the world tactics are used by protestors, police and members of the public to do with Juststopoil. This is embarrassing and must stop asap in 2023/24 !?

[@luma3037]

We need more people that are willing to stand up for their values. I think that the both of you exemplified that in this interview.

[@viktordoe1636]

Imagine if every organisation would stand up for their values in such a destructive manner as these guys do, imagine even those whome you don't agree with would push their "values" by the methods of these just stop oil guys. Imagine that world for a minute...

[@pneumonoultramicroscopicsi4065]

​@@viktordoe1636we're in that world, in our world only the strong prevail, the world you see before you is the world of winners, built on the skulls of many many before you.

[@bbhdd6181]

“we’ve got to look at the bigger picture here” in response to whether an infant should potentially die so they can protest

[@bankmanager]

Can you not fathom a situation where that protest would be justified? What if it was 10 babies who were potentially about to die? What if 10,000 people were going to die? Or our government was about to drop a strategic nuclear weapon?

[@TheEnderCycloneEnd]

Yes, but he would argue that unless climate change is stopped, millions of infants would die. However, it does seem like an ineffective strategy because that mother will sensibly never support his cause and will despise his organization and all climate activists

[@hendrikd2113]

I would say their goal isn't the protesting.

[@nigeltrc7299]

@@TheEnderCycloneEnd That exact same logic can be used to justify bombing a children’s hospital in the name of this cause.

[@MattCrawley_Music]

​@@nigeltrc7299not exactly... They're not purposefully hurting children.

[@P-qk2tz]

Fantastic interview, great responses.

[@フフウェイ]

Damn this is even spicier than the last one. Certainly didn't expect this. You might have to walk out of your own interview for the next one just to keep up the momentum. 🤭

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

😅

[@natzos6372]

its sad that people care more about condemning just stop oil instead of the politicians and companies destroying our future

[@mcgreedz]

“I can't recall a single ‘campaign group’ that has maintained this level of prevalence in the media for this amount of time.” - 12:25 Yes, terrorism does seem to get a lot of media attention. It's not exactly something to be proud of.

[@Gaibz]

Good interview Alex. It gave me a much better understanding of JSO. I was concerned that he couldn't define a red line but hope your interview has given him food for thought and they firm up their boundaries.

[@buffalowt]

Yes! If this group had established boundaries that were strictly enforced and public I would have a much easier time supporting them. As of now I only agree with their cause. That being said this has positively impacted my perception of them.

[@ollie6133]

Out of interest, as this is a philosophy channel and I'm a philosophy student, could you define a red line? And without just restating 'red' and 'line'? I'd wager that it's actually pretty hard.

[@LeZylox]

@@ollie6133 the red line to them is their own population suffering less than the affected suffering of people in any social justice movement

[@Gaibz]

@@ollie6133 I thought it was a petty universally understood term for a boundary or limit which should not be crossed.

[@buffalowt]

@@ollie6133 a red line or boundary is something that separates acceptable actions from unacceptable actions. Once the line established by the group is crossed then we know that they are no longer beholden to their own morals.