I’ll just go ahead and copy a previous comment I made for this one, because as always a lot of people don’t feel like reading the article.
"Painting was behind glass, the point is that in a climate change hellscape all this precious art is in danger. If all the people who read about a painting they’ve never heard of before get angry about “paint being thrown at it” they’ll really hate what’ll happen with extreme weather in a climate disaster. "
These activists have some weird ideas sometimes, but this isn’t really one of them. If you read the article they all acknowledge that what they did they aren’t somehow entitled to do, and that they will probably go to jail for it as well. The entire point as with all protest is to shove it in the face of all the people that ignore this issue on a daily basis.
Oil companies are doing the same thing to all precious art and nature and all the things you love, so where is the accountability for them?
TL;DR these people are annoying, and that’s the fucking point.
I think people forget protests are supposed to be annoying. How else would you get attention? Asking nicely isn’t helping.
Throw Soup At The Oil Execs Instead
I would shake someone’s hand that did this
These pro-acrylic protests are getting out of hand!
golf clap
How does one determine which kind of soup to use for this?
Heinz, apparently, is the most wholesome choice for these anti-oil protesters. I’m sure they’re a great company.
Whatever is on sale.
Its the soup thats not for your family.
I wonder if they would kill someone just to get attention at some point.
Maybe they’d let me beat the everliving shit out of them for their cause.
A man literally self-immolated to try to bring attention to our lack of effort to confront climate change. It was barely covered and you don’t seem to even know it happened. But you’re here fantasizing about violence because they threw some soup on a painting’s protective glass, so it seems like that’s actually working.
and you don’t seem to even know it happened
When you pretend to be able to read my mind via the internet and then try to use that in order to justify your argument, I feel no compunction in immediately dismissing you— you’re clearly irrational and will do/say anything to further your agenda… just like these people who would destroy priceless works of art or light themselves aflame just for attention when alternatives are available and such methods have never been proven to be effective.
Don’t blame me for my valid criticisms. Just find better ways to achieve your goals.
If you knew someone self-immolated and didn’t get coverage, what is your reasoning behind the very stable and very cool suggestion that you would beat them up for publicity? That a self-inflicted death wouldn’t get attention, but maybe a voluntary assault would?
You just didn’t know, but can’t drop the tough guy act to admit it.
Once again— stick to the facts…
Your valid criticism is… to beat the shit out of them? I mean look, I’ve seen some bad criticism but that’s not even in the right basket.
Valid criticism is to call out their (your) destruction of priceless artifacts, and priceless art and their burning of themselves just for attention. Attention which accomplishes nothing.
Your only response is to blame me for pointing that out. How childish. How dare you.
You’ve got nothing but empty intentions and empty gestures. What a disappointing thing you are. You are nothing but the tantrums you throw, and no one will remember you for anything but that. Tantrums.
You’re replying to the wrong guy silly. I didn’t blame you for pointing anything out lol.
I have implied nothing
Just find better ways to achieve your goals.
Nah.
So you admit that your own ideology is to blame. It’s your own audiology that has failed.
Have fun being free Pinkertons for the Oil corps. Maybe you should direct your anger at them since they are the reason why these people are activists.
I’m not interested in this stupid cause. It’s not worth destroying a priceless piece of art just to draw attention to it.
Well the most priceless piece in our entire existence is about to be rendered unusable by our species. That kick your taint a little? Or do you just care about art that humans made as some sort of symbol of taste and intelligence?
“Climate change! Therefore I can commit crime! How dare you criticize me!”
Your childish attempt to blame me for the actions of these vandals is preposterous.
Find a better way to achieve your goals that doesn’t involve hypocritically destroying things of irreplaceable value.
You can’t peaceful 95% of wealth from the ghouls that took it. I’m sorry to tell.you that. There is good in this world though, and it is worth fighting for. Whether or not populations want to risk the uncertainty of fighting is what we shall see. Because I dont believe for a second the corporations will stop.
Once again, you are blaming others for the failure in your own ideology
No no, you see, it’s for THEIR cause. The beatings would be happening to raise awareness of climate change, not to support oil companies. Isn’t that the logic, here? There’s no other relevance of attempted vandalism of a painting by a man who died before climate change was even fully understood. The cause is all-important; the act just a detail to catch eyes, apparently.
I think the most important thing is to not bother a single soul while trying to take action about a serious global issue, just really stay out of everyone’s way if you want your point to stick in the minds of people. Its the only way to grab their attention.
I would guess that the vast majority of people who treasure art also care a great deal about climate change. So I’m not sure how getting their attention helps.
You’re reading this in a newspaper. It’s in no way limited to art enjoyers.
Not that I have any idea why you think art enjoyers are particularly climate conscious. Or that their consciousness extends to actually doing anything rather than just thinking it would be nice if the environment was cleaner.
The level of disdain you have for people who are already ideologically aligned with you is insane, especially considering that you believe that this kind of action, in addition, is just what is needed to win them over. Are we running on battered spouse rules or something?
I don’t give a fuck about bothering people. I give a fuck about the potential damage to pieces of human heritage. Take a sledgehammer, hit the streets, hell, hit the oil execs, I don’t give a fuck. But don’t damage artwork or artifacts that are generations old and widely recognized as important pieces of human culture.
Like, fuck, when anti-colonial activists knifed that painting of some British twat a few months back, I was totally fine with it. Because it was:
- A relevant British twat to colonization
- A painting that wasn’t even that fucking old
- A painting that was not widely recognized as a cultural treasure
I wonder if they got off, come to think of it.
I don’t give a fuck about bothering people. I give a fuck about the potential damage to pieces of human heritage.
Ok, then why are you complaining. There was zero potential damage from this act.
There was zero potential damage from this act.
Pug my guy, all bets are off, every polluting industry is grinding billions to keep this cart on its current track. I’m sure if they could strike at oil execs they would, but have you tried to locate these people? Which mansion are they in at this time of year? Its not realistic. We’re burning alive right now. They need to garner mass attention now, and we’re all sitting here arguing over the efficacy of paint on paper instead of talking about the literal destruction of all life supporting habitats, not even just human. Its that serious.
Pug my guy, all bets are off, every polluting industry is grinding billions to keep this cart on its current track.
But it’s the vandalism of art that’s going to turn the tides against that? A few middle class kids getting a handful of months in prison for tossing soup around at an art gallery?
Fuck, if you’re gonna be serious about taking this as a suffragist level crisis, you need suffragist level tactics. You need to riot. You need to attack the places the rich feel safe. Not toss soup on historical artifacts to ‘raise awareness’.
I’m sure if they could strike at oil execs they would
I’m extremely doubtful of that. That wouldn’t feel ‘monumental’ enough. They want to be part of a world-changing event, the bit that people look back and say “This is it, this is when it started!” without understanding the long and complex fight that led to that point. They want to be part of a notable event, not a mass campaign. But my distrust of their motives is beside the point; even if their motives were unimpugnable, this would remain a terrible way to go about things.
but have you tried to locate these people? Which mansion are they in at this time of year?
Man, the richest people in the world can be tracked with almost hilarious ease. Stunning amounts of information is publicly available. Flight logs, ship entry/exit to ports, publicly announced corpo meetings.
They need to garner mass attention now,
That’s just the thing - it’s not mass attention that the subject needs. The subject HAS mass attention. The issue is that people don’t perceive the seriousness of issue, or believe more is being done about it than actually is, or fall for political rhetoric that promises environmental destruction under the guise of conservation. We HAVE mass attention. People KNOW. But they aren’t on our side, or at least, rather, not on our side in the way that we need.
This is the grueling, ugly, thankless part that no one wants to do, the education, the politiking, the push to reorganize incentives to prioritize climate goals, the miserable prying of fringe supporters to a pro-climate position. And that doesn’t suit people who prefer there to be a single isolated issue they can focus all their attention on and get accolades for - there’s no point where the world collapses onto its knees, tears in its eyes, and cries out “I see now, I see, thank you so much!”
The most ideal realistic scenario is the scenario of women’s rights - in a hundred years, multifaceted efforts may, if we fight for it, render the question of opposing climate change obsolete - but no one is going to admit in a hundred years, save the lunatic fringe, of being pro-oil or the environmental equivalent of the time, just as no one except the lunatic fringe questions women’s suffrage now (I think if we presume that our efforts fighting the issue in the here and now are successful, at the very least the issue then cannot still be oil in 100 years, or we’ve utterly lost in that period of time, but I use oil just as a signifier of that ‘kind’ of position).
The fight will never end. And people get discouraged by that, so they try to hyperfocus to the detriment of actual progress on the matter.
