• stoneparchment@possumpat.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Contrary to most of the opinions in this thread, I think this (and the van gogh incident) is a great and appropriate protest.

    It causes a knee-jerk reaction to be mad that they are harming a precious piece of history and culture, which is a perfect juxtaposition to how the climate change harms our precious natural resources and will harm ourselves, and

    It achieves this without actually causing permanent damage to the subject artifact, and

    It is incendiary enough to remain in our public consciousness long enough for it to affect the discourse.

    I only wish there was a more direct way to protest the people most responsible for the worst effects (oil executives, politicians, etc.), but the truth is that the “average middle-class Westerner” (most of the people who have access to enjoy these particular cultural relics) is globally “one of the worst offenders”. While I firmly believe that individuals have less power to enact change than corporations and policymakers, this protest does achieve the goal of causing reflection within people who have the power to make changes.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’ll disagree. I think these actions only entrench the decided.

      As in: if you are of your opinion that damaging artifacts is appropriate, given the protest cause, then you’re already “sold”.

      If you feel that these actions are inappropriate, then you have only gotten further away from these actors, and, potentially their message.

      I mean that I’m not sure how many undecided or uninformed folks are impressed, convinced or engaged by these destructive protests.

    • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      It gets the exact opposite effect. Yes they get attention alright. But the wrong attention.

      People don’t think “oh wow yeah stop oil!” They think “wow these stop oil guys are absolute idiots, I don’t want to be associated with them”

      • paris@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        That’s the point though. They’ve done other protest work “the proper way” and nobody knows about it because it doesn’t get reported on. They want the message “just stop oil” to be in the news, so they do what gets them in the news.

        If they go for the “right” attention, they’re barely reported on by two local outlets. If they go for public outcry, they’re global news in hours. Their goal isn’t to get you to support their organization. It’s to keep you talking about and thinking about and caring about climate change.

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Man, I’ve studied history and I still agree with all that they’re doing and even wish they had done permanent damage to all the things these protestors have sprayed. The hypocrisy is incredible.

    It’s just like when Notre-Dame burned, billions started coming in while people in Paris are homeless or must choose between eating or paying rent.

    These things are objects, living beings are dying due to our inaction and people would rather spend money to admire a fucking painting than think about it? That’s disgusting.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        No one should have to explain why throwing soup on a painting is a dumb way to protest - yes, even if the painting has a glass barrier

        In the modern history of protest it’s the stupidest possible way.

          • Telorand@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            We talk more about their tactics than the message they’re trying to spread, so I don’t think we’re really discussing the things they’d want us to focus upon.

              • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.alOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                I think it needs to get to a point where the public put pressure on companies and inconveniencing them will force them to choose sides. I’m not sure it’s the side of common sense though.

            • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              We only discuss their tactics briefly when they do something dramatic and get on the news.

              When people hear about their tactics, ask why they’re going so far, and look into environmental issues as a result, I think that can have a much longer lasting impact.

              • Telorand@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                And that’s where we disagree. I don’t think anybody is researching anything. The average person does not have the drive or attention span for a Step 2.

                Plus, I agree with their core ideology, yet I still think people who do this stuff are assholes, and I’m immediately annoyed on the outset. To expect people who aren’t invested in climate change to look past the “asshole” is a pretty big ask.

    • sping@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, why can’t they just quietly trudge towards our own extinction with resignation like the rest of us, instead of making a fuss.

      • doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Idk if petite bougeouis theatrics while trudging towards calamity is any better than doing it quietly. Maybe a little. And fuck the Mona Lisa. But defacing an archaeological site (even temporarily) for bougeouis theatrics is just icky

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          It’s not about if the object damages the environment, the point they’re making is that society is ready to spend fortunes preserving old objects while everything around them is going to shit. We don’t have our priorities straight, being able to take a plane to travel thousands of km to go see a painting from the 1600s is more important to us than making sure our neighbors are able to eat or keeping some species alive.

          At some point we’ll have to wake up and face reality, there’s nothing more important than the incoming climate crisis and if we don’t address it, us preserving these paintings and Stonehenge and so on will all have been for nothing as it will be cockroaches that will be left to enjoy them.

      • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Same as going to see whales or a rhinoceros. Why not spray paint an elephant? Cut down the biggest redwood tree! I mean there are PEOPLE who are starving!

        Relics of humanity AND nature AND all the stuff in nature belong to everybody, not just rich assholes. Wrecking these things to draw attention to other topics is peak entitlement.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Please tell me where I said it’s ok to travel to go check out whales and rhinos? I’ll be the first one to tell you airplane traveling should be limited to essential travel and tourism is a major environmental problem.

          It’s funny because you used two examples of damaging living things while these people are intentionally “damaging” non living things in order to make us pay attention to all the living things we’re letting suffer.

          • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I picked living things intentionally because there are people who will put more value on heritage and “stuff” than those lives. For example, if I had to choose between the very last rhino and the Great pyramid, I wouldn’t pick the rhino, stonehenge or all of the orangutans is a different discussion. Even any one person weighed against some objects (or other species) is not a cut and dry discussion. It’s totally shitty to think you get to pick what’s more or less important for everyone.

            The first time an activist jumps through a plane engine will get a lot more press and is better targeted, and I don’t mean that in a casual / flippant / dismissive way. A spree of vandalism to aircraft engines or supply lines would also do a fine job at a lower cost. People won’t stop traveling because one monument gets defaced temporarily or permanently.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Then I would tell you you’ll be in the wrong side of history because you can save all the stuff you want, once there’s no one to enjoy it it will all have been worthless, saving living things so something survives us is much more important.

              • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                You’ve created a false dichotomy. There is no need to trivialize shared treasures or heritage in pursuit of any cause in order to save anything or anyone. You’ve decided in some Machiavellian twist that whatever cause you think is truly just is more important than anything other people might value.

                It is absolutely important to protect our future, ourselves, and the life we share the planet with, but not by throwing tantrums with unrelated collateral damage. Fight for the climate by fighting for the climate, not by desecrating churches/monuments/art/nature in some weird plight to accidentally piss off the right people and get more TV time.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Good luck making an omelette without breaking some eggs. You’re just pushing for the status quo, find me a single revolution that achieved major societal changes without collateral damage.

    • Rozaŭtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Using water-soluble paint is not the way.

      Using soup is not the way.

      Using powder that will wash itself away is not the way.

      Blocking a street for a couple hours is not the way.

      Glueing yourself to a pole is not the way.

      What is the way then? Sitting quietly in the corner? Signing a petition on Change.org? Waiting for the politician that takes oil money to have a change of heart?

      • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I don’t claim to have the answer, but this is not the answer. Ruining a unique unsolvable mystery of human past is dumb. Who’s feathers does it ruffle anyway?

      • muppeth@scribe.disroot.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        But all those actions are exactly same as signing petition. Just louder and in many cases made more about the protesters then the protest. It’s more like doing something so that you feel you tried and media writes about it which males you feel like you did the change. But nature doesn’t give two shits about the protests neither is the current economy of consumption which leads us to the disaster. Being on the internet, discussing this matter right now is contributing to the problem and only shows that our life style, which we are happy with is the problem.

        And yeah blocking the street causes much more pollution plus losses off everyone, so not sure what’s the goal there either

  • PeteBauxigeg@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    5 months ago

    More moronic arts and craftsy hippie shit giving the left a shit reputation in the UK