Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

How to Blow Up a Pipeline (2022) (Patreon)

Published:
2025-06-03 00:49:44
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

Jayme Lawson, Ariela Barer, Lukas Gage, Sasha Lane, Forrest Goodluck, Jake Weary, Kristine Froseth, Marcus Scribner

Files

Previews only

Pipeline

Comments

Chris

Hi guys--thanks for doing a challenging one. It's based on a book, but more "inspired by"--the book is a non-fiction treatise on the morality this kind of sabotage. As a little easter egg, that's actually the book that Shawn is reading when he first meets Logan in the bookstore (and Logan says "doesn't teach you how to do it though"). It's not Logan and Rowan at the end, the idea is it's a totally different group. Without putting moral judgment one way or the other, their theory of the case is that they're trying to create a scenario where makers and consumers of fossil fuel intense stuff (pipelines, yachts, monster SUVs, etc.) have to consider paying a "might get destroyed/blown up" tax on the front end... and hopefully make other choices. And that scenario would require a much bigger movement. Bringing morality back in--most people are going to start from a place of "this was wrong." (Hopefully they also start from a place of "climate change is real bad"--if someone doesn't at least start from that one, not much point, I think.) What I like about this movie is it hopefully, at least, forces a person to consider, ok, if this isn't what they're supposed to do... what ARE they supposed to do? And not like, just consider it in a rhetorical sense, but with specifics. CO2 emissions set a new record every year. They're already destroying these characters' lives. And the other responses we see are crappy movies, college divest movements, fighting random gas field workers... stuff isn't working in other words. So, I think ideally, one thing someone can take away from this is that if the "legal" fight against emissions isn't allowed to make more headway... sooner or later, we're gonna see a lot more extralegal stuff. Final thing on eminent domain--the place they get you is on "fair market value"--one doesn't have to think too hard to come up with scenarios where fair market value doesn't have any relationship to the actual, real world value of the property to the person losing it.

Youtalkingtome
>>176014299

I've been thinking about this movie all day. It's so well done and it's a movie that you really wanna discuss for a while. Definitely something you'd wanna grab a coffee or beer with someone and just talk about that ending!

Lola Lirola

I kinda love the "Let this radicalize you" cycle of movies we have going on here lately.

dys

It is a really tough moral problem, if you really believe climate change is likely to kill millions of people (which I do!) then maybe it's justified to perform violent acts to try to stop it? But on the other hand that same kind of thinking is what leads to people blowing up abortion clinics, because if you really believe abortion is murder (which I DON'T), then by the same token violence would be justified to stop it. I had to read the Unabomber's manifesto for a college course and came away from it thinking maybe the guy had a point, I don't and didn't agree with it but the idea that technology will end the world isn't implausible (especially with the advances we've seen in AI the last couple years) and if you could stop that by killing a few people maybe that is morally the right thing to do... In reality it usually ends up being counterproductive to the cause these people are doing it for, and I think if you ever find yourself considering violence to further your cause you need to take about fifty steps back and make VERY VERY certain you didn't just radicalize yourself into an unreasonable course, but these dilemmas still kind of break my brain.

Chris
>>176235771

I've similarly always thought it's not particularly tough to make the moral case here... the much more difficult one is the case for efficacy. The exact dichotomy you lay out I think serves as a really good reminder that all beliefs, even if honestly held, are not morally equal. We should all have really high standards regarding the degree to which we interrogate our own beliefs... and be awfully ready to figure out what the implications of uncertainty are in 95% of situations...