126
submitted 11 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

This was the one soup-throwing which did any damage at all; in this case to the frame.

The penalty is appreciably worse than for minor violent attacks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 40 points 11 hours ago

I said this before when JSO used "washable" paint on Stonehenge: they are punching in the wrong direction. Billionaires don't care about human life, so why would they care about a painting?

These works belong to humanity, and by defacing them, you aren't winning converts—you're just pissing people off. Go vandalize something that belongs to the billionaires making things worse for the rest of us; unless you can win people to your cause, you're going to remain small-time vandals that get outsized prison sentences and unflattering media coverage.

[-] [email protected] 41 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Unless you can demonstrate an actual harm that these people are doing to the cause, I am going to give them my support for doing SOMETHING. If it moves the needle a millionth of a percent in the right direction, tear down all the art galleries. We only have one planet.

Many of these cases have had jury nullification, which means a jury of twelve people who have been vetted to remove bias, all unanimously agreed to say "fuck you" to the legal system rather than lock up JSO activists.

That tells me that there is considerable public support for them, whatever you say to the contrary.

Edit: Here's a study about the actual problems facing the climate movement. Support isn't the issue:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-01925-3

Abstract:

Mitigating climate change necessitates global cooperation, yet global data on individuals' willingness to act remain scarce. In this study, we conducted a representative survey across 125 countries, interviewing nearly 130,000 individuals. Our findings reveal widespread support for climate action. Notably, 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action. Countries facing heightened vulnerability to climate change show a particularly high willingness to contribute. Despite these encouraging statistics, we document that the world is in a state of pluralistic ignorance, wherein individuals around the globe systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act. This perception gap, combined with individuals showing conditionally cooperative behaviour, poses challenges to further climate action. Therefore, raising awareness about the broad global support for climate action becomes critically important in promoting a unified response to climate change. Global support and cooperation are necessary for successful climate action. Large-scale representative survey results show that most of the population around the world is willing to support climate action, while a perception gap exists regarding other citizens' intention to act.

The abstract of that paper says that the real problem is people's lack of awareness of how incredibly high the support for climate action is, because that informs how likely they are to act.

In which case, all this hand-wringing about which actions increase or decrease support is a red herring, because the support is not actually in danger.

I would suggest that the real problem is people who handwring about the support creating the perception that the cause is less popular than it is.

[-] [email protected] -3 points 10 hours ago

These people didn't get a jury nullification, though, so clearly that doesn't apply here. I don't have a problem with all of their actions, just these that cause permanent or potentially permanent harm to historical artifacts.

And I disagree with your premise that history and its artifacts are a worthy sacrifice for any cause; that's how we get ignorant people and despots who weaponize that ignorance.

Doing "something" doesn't mean it's effective or worthwhile. I could throw soup on a painting, or I could spray paint a billionaire's mansion. I could paint Stonehenge, or I could sue the polluters. I could deface historical artifacts, or I could lobby a politician.

What they did is so dumb, and while I appreciate people who want to see anything done, making the news isn't some kind of event that will realistically "move the needle" and suddenly open the eyes of the ignorant.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I could throw soup on a painting,

Yes, evidently they managed to do it

or I could spray paint a billionaire's mansion.

You'd get arrested before ever reaching the wall.

I could paint Stonehenge,

Yes, evidently

or I could sue the polluters.

In the court the polluters have stacked themselves? Let me know how that goes. The polluters have more money and lawyers than you.

The people deciding the laws are bought.

I could deface historical artifacts,

Yes

or I could lobby a politician.

What with all the millions you just have laying around? Lol get real.

I suggest you introspect as to why the potential (or even actual) damage of artifacts makes you so angry. Why don't all the artifacts that were lost to time make you angry as well? I understand feeling disappointed if one ever gets destroyed, but you seem much more agitated than that. That anger can be easily manipulated by your environment to make you do things against your self interest.

[-] [email protected] -2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I suggest you introspect as to why the potential (or even actual) damage of artifacts makes you so angry.

I told you why. It's not my fault you refuse to read.

Why don't all the artifacts that were lost to time make you angry as well?

Because "time" isn't a conscious agent.

That anger can be easily manipulated by your environment to make you do things against your self interest.

You mean like throwing soup on a painting, accomplishing nothing, and getting a prison sentence? Lol

Edit: clarified a word.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
load more comments (34 replies)
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
126 points (98.5% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5080 readers
738 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS