So the people who go "I would have done something, but now that they painted stonehenge I won't" will suddenly change their way when they see "normal protest" as you call them?

Suuuure. Keep telling yourself that. You're not sounding ridiculous at all.

Public attention to the matter of climate change. Sorry that I didn't spell it out for you.

Care to answer my question though? Because if you have not a single idea what form of protest could actually sway the people you claim to want to reach, we can just as well continue with the cornstarch.

Not one?... Well I guess then we can just as well continue with the cornstarch.

Your questions seemed rather rhetorical to me. As long as you act on the premise that there's no solution, any conversation about the topic - including this one - is a monumental waste of time. So let's just leave it at that.

Ah, a doomer. So let me guess, there's nothing we can do and every form of activism is useless?

Just go on with your day then. This protest certainly isn't about you. They didn't hurt you personally, so why not just let them do their thing. The people who believe solutions exist can continue to search for them and you don't have to bother.

Or do you actually have something helpful in mind?

How do we stop evil corporations? With political action. How do we get political action? Either by voting or collective activism.

There's no solution that doesn't require ourselves to spring into action, even if it's "mostly the fault of a few corporations and their executives".

Gaining momentum within the movement, keep public attention high, pressure politicians to public statements, legitimise other forms of protests, encourage public debate, inspire involvement of people who generally support them, to name a few.

On the other hand there isn't a single form of protest that wouldn't be either ignored or used as an excuse for inactivity by the people you claim to want to reach. Or could you name even a single example that would make them actually do something?

That's not the tactic here at all. The people who are outraged aren't important. They will never participate meaningfully. Those people are and forever will be part of the problem. So it doesn't matter if they're angry now. This isn't about them.

The BS part is that they would have done anything helpful to the cause without the protest.

This is just another excuse. "People think I support throwing starch at Stonehenge" is not a reason to vote conservative and eat red meat at every meal.

Or you fell for the propaganda that's discrediting them.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. Far too little is being done against climate change, on every level - socially, politically, economically, individually. One would have to wonder what the fuck is happening if we didn't have some form of protest. They are necessarily going to become more extreme as time goes by, and they will have every right to do so.

Look at the raging reactions in the comments to a little bit of starch. If they would actually destroy something, let alone hurt someone, they'd be framed as terrorists and prosecuted in a heartbeat.

Now that's just BS, sorry. Not a single person who was on the fence of doing something against climate change will go "oh well but I didn't like the method of those protesters, now I won't do it".

The people who are constantly looking for excuses to do literally nothing are lost to climate action anyway. Every meaningful progress will have to be won against those people, not with them. If even slight inconveniences are too much to ask from them sure, they will shout and cry how this protest is the reason, but let's be honest: They were never going to be a part of the solution anyway.

Why not? They used starch. It's not like Stonehenge is actually damaged. And using symbols people care about is the only way to convey that the crisis we're facing is actually threatening things we care about. Everything else will be, and has been, ignored.

That sounds really good. Glad to hear it.

Ah okay. So deinstitutionalization in that context was meant to include psychiatric institutions into general hospitals? Because that I can totally get behind.

Based on the other comments I got the impression that there simply is no inpatient treatment plan for mental health in the US.

My experience does not come from movies. I am an outpatient psychotherapist (in a country with a reasonably functioning psychiatric system). I have repeatedly seen patients slip into psychomental crises where outpatient care is no longer sufficient. The local psychiatric clinics were sometimes real lifesavers. That's why I find the idea of healthcare without emergency institutions confusing. I would find it terrible not to be able to offer my patients anything in such emergencies.

Bleak.

I don't quite understand how deinstitutionalizing was supposed to work here. That's like dissolving the fire department because we want to avoid cars. Was there no way to reform or replace the institutions? Just getting rid of an emergency service seems kinda like the situation you're describing was part of the plan.

If you live in the US and experience a psychotic episode, a suicidal crisis, or another mental health emergency - where do you go?

Diese Menschen haben für Spione gestimmt. Und das ist kein Witz, so schön das auch wäre.

Wer in dieser Wahl AfD gewählt hat, hat seine Stimme bewusst Verfassunfsfeinden gegeben. Das ist ein Fakt. Die AfD hat buchstäblich Spione als Spitzenkandidaten nominiert. 16% haben sich davon nicht aufhalten lassen. Wenn das irgendwas belegt, dann das: Diese Menschen sind für die Demokratie verloren.