128
submitted 13 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] 13 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Which artifact was damaged? Because even in your link the article says:

"The New York Times’ ran an article titled “Climate Activists Throw Mashed Potatoes on Monet Painting,” further describing it in the subtitle as “the latest attack on widely admired art.” However, it is not until the fifth paragraph that the article notes that “the food did not cause any damage to the piece.” This raises the question, does the public differentiate between “damaging pieces of art” and “pretending to damage pieces of art” in their views of these non-violent, disruptive protests?

Also comparing having to make people understand the degree of damage we get from climate change vs christianity, its just an amazing analogy lol, what can i even say after that?. Have a nice day, i think you really need it.

[-] [email protected] -3 points 11 hours ago

However, it is not until the fifth paragraph that the article notes that “the food did not cause any damage to the piece.” This raises the question, does the public differentiate between “damaging pieces of art” and “pretending to damage pieces of art” in their views of these non-violent, disruptive protests?

That's the thing. Did they know for a fact that what they did was not going to cause damage. I suspect they didn't care, and the fact that they didn't cause damage is likely in spite of their tactics.

As for my analogy, like all analogies, it is imperfect. The point is that the effort to "inform people" isn't enough anymore. Virtually everyone has heard the message that Big Oil is bad and climate change is happening; whether they choose to accept it is a different matter, and on that front JSO is making no headway, as evidenced by that study.

People need a goal and a path to get there, and defacing public art isn't something average people will follow.

Also, thank you for the well-wishes. I hope you have a lovely day, too.

this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
128 points (98.5% liked)

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

5080 readers
727 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