• AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      Almost as if when you target the problem it sends a better message than doing some random shit.

    • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      The fact that most comments here seem to be talking about stone henge says otherwise. If not for what happened to stone henge recently, people might not have paid this much attention to this.

    • Kokesh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      142
      ·
      5 months ago

      Those idiots destroying paintings and monoliths belong behind bars. That won’t convince anyone with even half a brain to think. Just destroys something and makes everyone angry.

      • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        160
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        destroying paintings and monoliths

        But… they didn’t do either of those things. They threw soup at glass, and for the Stonehenge thing they used washable powder paint. They were publicity stunts with no damage done.

        • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          127
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah but it’s a lot harder to paint climate activists as the bad guys when you say things like “they souped our glass and powdered our rocks”, so better to just lie, right?

        • tristan@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          35
          ·
          5 months ago

          Going after a painting that’s behind glass is VERY different to going after the stone henge that has no protective layer, and most importantly of all, has nothing to do with the target of their cause

          saying it destroyed the stone henge is a major exaggeration, saying it did no damage is also just as wrong. The English heritage society emphasised that it was only no VISIBLE damage left, however they also said it did cause damage.

          It’s just like how you can’t touch walls in caves because any change in the oils and stuff in our skins can cause long term damage even though there’s no immediate visible damage

          • Krono@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            55
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            How do you think those rocks will fare when the average temperature rises a few degrees?

            Do you think the big stones will avoid damage while humans are fighting wars over water?

            Are those precious rocks going to be ok when countries near the equator become uninhabitable, and the UK has to violently defend its borders from millions of climate refugees?

            Do you think it can still be considered a cultural heritage site after all the humans are dead?

            • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              It’s going to be too cold to visit once the Gulf Stream stalls from reduced ocean salinity, and Britain’s climate is more like northern Canada or Alaska.

            • tristan@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              27
              ·
              5 months ago

              I never once said I disagree with their message, but doesn’t mean I need to agree with their methods

              If their message is that oil is bad and that government should be doing more, they should be targeting oil companies, lobbyists, government officials, companies that have excess waste and chemical use (coke im looking at you)… Not heritage listed stuff that’s mostly maintained by volunteers

                • tristan@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  21
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  If their message was anti whaling and they cut down trees as well as sabotaged boats, would you be “well they attack boats too so that’s fine”?

              • Krono@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                27
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                5 months ago

                If you actually agreed with their message, then I don’t think you would take the time to whinge about the safety of the precious rocks.

                • tristan@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  20
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  No, because I don’t agree with their methods… Just like any extremist group might have a good message but doesn’t mean I agree with them bombing oil pipelines or kidnapping people

                  Attacking rocks does nothing to progress their cause… Attacking things in the environment doesn’t even line up with their cause of wanting to protect the environment

                  As long as they stick to actually attacking the companies and groups that actually are the cause of the problems, I would support their methods and as a result, them as a group

                  • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    11
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    While I haven’t heard a reasoning from any of these groups why they perform provocative acts in galleries and on historical sites, I think there are reasons:

                    1. A lot of art galleries, opera houses, and other institutions of high culture are supported by the super-rich. As such many of these institutions are outlets of fossil-fuel money.

                    2. High culture is essentially a distraction for those with education and intellect. So going to places of high culture means you tend to reach (and, granted, annoy) the kinds of people who have enough free mental bandwidth to understand and enough clout to actually influence decisions.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        105
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        Those idiots destroying paintings and monoliths belong behind bars.

        If only you were so vitriolic about the fossil fuel execs destroying the entire planet.

      • mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        63
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        Destroyed? Let’s talk about that.

        As you know, Stonehenge has been standing in the rain for 3,000 years.

        Following the industrial revolution, fossil fuel emissions made that acid rain. It attacked every cultural artifact standing outdoors for decades.

        I think that the people who did that belong behind bars.

      • Alteon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        ThOsE iDiOtS!1!

        Says the moron while not even taking 3 seconds to understand what they did and why they did it. Lol

        Look how angry everyone gets about art and architecture whilst not even remotely having the same reaction about climate change and what it’s doing to our planet.

        • troglodytis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          5 months ago

          I think that’s kinda the commenters point. Morons almost have a chance of connecting a few dots when it’s private jets. Half a step removed, and nope, morons won’t even attempt understanding

          • Alteon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            I think the point is to ragebait people into reading about it.

            An educational campaign doesn’t work.

            People get angry when the protests disrupt their day.

            Peaceful protests happen literally everyday in the US in nearly every city and hear nothing about them.

            The only way it gets visibility is it has to be disruptive, and the only way to get them to read/learn about it is to hook them in. And if Faux News has taught anyone anything, it’s that ragebaiting is fucking effective.

            • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              anyone that thinks people will say ‘oh these guys are doing something I feel is stupid, I better learn what they have to say’ has never met a single human in their life.

              • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                That’s funny, you realize not everyone will jump to the conclusion it was ‘stupid’ right away? Most will say, “they did what? Why?” Aka curiosity. We learn more. We understand. Then we decide if it’s stupid or not.

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Not gonna lie, this was my thought process for some time. But protests aren’t meant to be comfortable.

      • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Have you ever seen the pictures of the ocean after the gulf oil spill? They never did fix that - they just sprayed chemicals that sunk the oil to the bottom of the gulf, creating a dead zone (with help from agricultural chemical runoff from the Mississippi River). And the people there never did get treated for all their medical issues, even though most of their food comes out of that ocean. That’s also why we need Medicare for all btw - so we can make sure the EPA, CDC, and other government organizations are actually doing their job and people are actually taken care of when something goes wrong.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Hear me out, painting private planes don’t effect 98% of humanity not everyone has an interest in the arts.