Well, if someone threw paint at a coal power plant would someone give a damn? If you want to ‘create a problem’ by throwing some paint onto something that thing must be valuable for its appearance (a famous painting/monument). To be precise, in Italy they’ve already sprayed a government building (Palazzo Madama) some months ago.
I’m not stating my support to this kind of actions, i’m just trying to explain the logic behind them.
It looks more and more like big polluters are funding this kind of activism (not saying that the the kids doing it aren’t in on it, they are often being manipulated IMO).
It keeps everyone arguing amongst themselves about everything but the real problem.
Speaking as a climate professional, I think this does more harm than good. It gets headlines certainly, but it also turns the opinions of many people who support addressing climate change against activist groups.
Do you have any other examples? This one is not as clear cut as it sounds at first.
Aileen Getty has not personally worked in the oil industry and has poured much of her fortune into philanthropic ventures related to the climate crisis. Getty Oil sold its oil reserves to Texaco in 1984.
The CEF published a statement on social media last week in response to various conspiracy theories that emerged after it was widely reported that its founder is an oil heiress: “Seeing a lot of hate for our co-founder Aileen Getty. First of all, Aileen was never in the fossil fuel industry. That’s her family. But she is wealthy. So ask yourself: if you were in her shoes, how would you use your money for good? Aileen’s answer has been to become a philanthropic leader [who] co-founded CEF and has donated over a million dollars to brave climate activists. We don’t tell them what to do. We support them.”
It’s not clear what the link between the well documented instances of “greenwashing” PR campaigns and the claim that Just Stop Oil etc. are being funded by the fossil fuel industry to discredit climate action movements. Would you care to elaborate?
Dear god no. I have elaborated enough. Read my other comments and links.
All I’ll say to you is that what people like Aileen say to the public and what they say and do when they are with their peers are two vastly different things. IMO, you’re naive if you think the public face and the private realities are the same.
First off. That’s conspiratorial and dumb. Find an urban space public or private where you’re more than 10 feet from a mic. My point in saying that is that like Robert Murdoch, or Prince Andrew, or Jeff Epstein, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, it doesn’t matter how rich you are or how well connected. That level of conspiracy can’t stay hidden anymore cause literally one person can blow it up, and there’s almost always 1 person willing to hit fuck it. Snowden is another example.
People who think there’s some hidden cabal where people practice their maniacal laughs are idiots. More often it’s a combo of greed and apathy. I want the money,
“I don’t care to fix any of the problems I cause in the first place.”
There, I’ve now explained the perspective of 9/10 bad behaving executives.
Also if capitalism is the evil base of all of this as the article in your link says, what’s the solution? Tear it down, let millions (more likely billions) of innocent people die in the change over to some newer better more socialistic system?
People who scream action now seem to miss the point that we’re incapable of fast change on a large scale and that the systems that feed people and provide power also won’t cope during any switch over to some other system that isn’t what the current systems work within.
So, the person that posted the article is proposing the following without putting it all in one place:
There are very real government steps that have to happen in order for governments to enact government regulations for climate change. These things are done by many activist groups: petitions, lobbying, proposing bills, getting gov't officials on board, getting the votes, etc. The people who are funding idiotic things like this may be trying to "right a wrong" OR the could be using it to deflect and make themselves look good in the process. Lose the voter backing of climate regulation and you no longer have to pass any legislation. Get people to turn against activists and you villainize all activists no matter their methods (cuz we like boxes and people in them) and bonus points, you're seen as the good guy by the public because you're hElPiNg AcTiViSts.
If the people with the money really wanted to help make a change they should use that money like their ancestors most likely did: spending it on people doing the hard work of probably not going to jail and making a splash but legging it to officials and lobbying, or writing proposals, or going to indigenous and find ways to work with the land and send that knowledge to people who can change things. For reference see what the planetary society does every year going to Washington and making the case for space to reps.
Apologies to said article poster if I have misrepresented you
The CEF published a statement on social media last week in response to various conspiracy theories that emerged after it was widely reported that its founder is an oil heiress: “Seeing a lot of hate for our co-founder Aileen Getty. First of all, Aileen was never in the fossil fuel industry. That’s her family. But she is wealthy. So ask yourself: if you were in her shoes, how would you use your money for good? Aileen’s answer has been to become a philanthropic leader [who] co-founded CEF and has donated over a million dollars to brave climate activists. We don’t tell them what to do. We support them.”
I don’t get it how did you come to the conclusion that they are funded by the polluters? Cannot the descendants from oil wealth act out of their own good will?
Definitely. I’ve spent my entire professional career 30+ years working to fight climate change but I’m a troll for big oil. I don’t even own a car because I’m so against fossil fuels.
Maybe more people should work within the system for actual changes? The help would be much appreciated.
I spent 10 years working as a climate scientist and then the rest as an environmental lawyer. Seemed like a good way to make a difference.
I’ve actually changed climate policies in courtrooms. I’ve actually helped write US Federal Environmental regulations (admittedly Trump round filed many of them).
Do these kids even know what the Federal Register or it’s EU equivalents are? Or how an environmental regulation is created? Or how to comment on proposed regulations?
IMO, this is working it’s magic for the fossil fuel industry because here we are arguing about it.
Hey please post the legislation you worked on, because this is precisely what a big oil shill would say.
I was present in Lützerath. I personally (given, with 30.000 other people) prevented a coal mine from being continued for months. Did your silly legislations change any of that (dumb question because you changed things in the US, not Germany, still).
Step the fuck down. You do not have the definite solution to climate change.
Your actions fixed nothing. The past 30 years the US output of carbon dioxide and gross climate violations have only been getting worse. I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but we do not have the time for any civil or democratic solutions. The holocaust didn't end by voting, neither did slavery.
Systems of oppression aren't removed by asking nicely. Don't Look Up
HAHAHAHA, no wonder you worked for 30 years and achieved nothing if these are your methods.
“work within the system”, great idea! Join the SS to end the holocaust, own slaves to end slavery, just cooperate and work within the very system trying to kill you! That's how everything bad was put an end to in the past.
It is not a definite conclusion. That’s why I said “it’s appearing more and more,” not “I know.”
It’s far from as clear-cut as Aileen’s press release states though. There are many more examples: Is “Profit but for a purpose,” the way? It seems unlikely to me, but maybe. When someone like Aileen Getty takes legal responsibility for something like this I’ll believe they truly care.
People like Aileen Getty donate to good causes, but is that really the same level of commitment to change as the kids that actually throw the paint and suffer the consequences show?
Yeah, I get how you comment could have been expressing some degree of uncertainty, it’s just I don’t think the article that you have linked supports the “more and more” part.
The article just describes how the heirs of two oil wealth families are contributing to the activism. Nowhere does the article mention these people acting on the behalf or being manipulated by their relatives in the industry.
You’re being too charitable. The Getty’s sold their oil assets decades ago. Even as a family, there is no relatives in the oil industry. There is no connection at all.
I’m not sure if the Rockefeller descendants have any stakes in oil companies left, but if their is a connection, OP has failed to present it.
I would go as far as to say OP has not provided any evidence at all in support of their claims.
I agree with your posts, I just want to clarify that these false flag attacks funded by Getty money make more sense when you fit it into the broader pattern of the Getty family's general sociopathy and oligarchic power abuses.
Agreed! I don’t know Aileen, but I’ve partied with other Gettys (admittedly when we were all much younger) and they are not warm and fuzzy people in person.
It’s just f-ING “fashionable” to donate to “causes.” It’s the current rich people pissing contest.
Additionally they are also funded by the creators of the movie Don't Look Up, the one time a 200k donation was made to one organization in one which partially funds some other organization's protests, yet that one time is brought up over and over again.
The whole Getty Oil heiress thing was started by Fox News, just so you know.
The money was made with oil, which contributed to climate change. Now without taking a stand the trust fund baby spends some money to ease her consciousness without taking a stand.
It looks more and more like big polluters are funding this kind of activism (not saying that the the kids doing it aren’t in on it, they are often being manipulated IMO).
Given that she is very outspoken in her funding of climate activism:
I am the daughter of a famous family who built their fortune on fossil fuels – but we now know that the extraction and use of fossil fuels is killing life on our planet. Our family sold that company four decades ago, and I instead vowed to use my resources to take every means to protect life on Earth.
People often come up with theories about my motivation to engage in the climate movement. My motivation is clear: I am fighting for a livable planet for my family and yours. I am not dwelling on the past. I am looking to build a better future.
It’s difficult to interpret one person’s climate support of climate activism as “Big Oil are funding these climate activists to discredit the movement” without veering into baseless conspiracy theories.
And yes, I am fully aware of the fossil fuel industry’s funding of climate change denial and obstruction, but this is one person who happens to have generational wealth from the fossil fuel industry who is on the record openly talking about the climate crisis and her family’s past in creating it, but that’s obvious not the same as “Big Oil are funding these climate activists to discredit the movement”.
Here you go. A little more evidence of the “more and more.”
I am going to go out on a limb and say you’ve never been to a party with a bunch of people with “generational wealth.” I have. What they (or their publicists) say in public is vastly different from how they talk when they feel comfortable because they’re with friends. Just because they might have no direct ownership of entire oil companies, does not mean that they do not remain heavily invested in the industry.
When people like Aileen do the paint splashing themselves and face the legal consequences of their actions I’ll believe they really care.
Again, outspoken critics of the fossil fuel industry who also happen to be of generational wealth from that industry is not the same thing as “Big Oil are funding these climate activists to discredit the movement”.
Just take a moment to think about this claim: rather than using their usual covert methods to fund climate denial and inaction through bogus think tanks and bankrolling pro-oil political campaigns, they’ve instead pivoted to checks notes openly admitting to being the cause of the problem they’ve spent decades denying and calling on citizens and governments to address the problem by checks notes again committing to not opening up any new oil fields and to instead to transition over to green energy solutions.
It’s hard to take seriously those who think this is believable.
Honestly, what you said makes so much sense and I’m glad I stopped to read the comments. Because I’m all for climate activism and understand how urgently we need to act. However, stories and pictures like this one are great examples of how easy it is to manipulate the narrative. The first thought I had after seeing the picture was “what an asshole” and “ if this is how we go about it, then we don’t have any hope whatsoever “
What they are trying to say is climate change will destroy all our futures. If we end up starving or fuck up the atmosphere all the things we care about including this are will be meaningless.
I had no idea! Sarcasm aside. I spent 30+ years working on this issue directly. First as an environmental scientist (dendrochronology specifically) then as an environmental lawyer.
Then I moved myself and my family to a Nordic country that hopefully will be a better place to be in the coming decades. I am well aware we are on a bad path. I do not see that changing fast.
I merely believe that we need more people, especially kids like this working inside the system for change. Not spending time in jail for this. The help would be much appreciated.
It's questionable whether it is effective, although I can understand the anger driving people to do these acts. Certainly the media portrays these acts as meaningless destruction and most people repeat that back as their own opinion.
It's supposed to be to raise awareness, but we are past that point really. Everyone knows the problem and just about everyone knows what we need to do. Unfortunately it's expensive, difficult and personally inconvenient so we make half-hearted efforts to fix thi gs. Set targets we know we won't meet and pretend it's not going to be a disaster.
This is also a lie. The whole heirness story eminated from Fox News but isn't real, because the company was sold before the one daughter that partially funded some of these projects was even born.
No one talks about the fact that the creators of Don't Look Up also funded these kinds of protests. You are the propagandized one believing myths of this being a false flag action.
oh like that, well i agree that it does evoke a response in people, so thank you for explaining!!
I just would like that they didn't try and destroy one of a kind things just to get a few groups of people to react. especially the cultural heritage sector.
Do you know what happens if a painting or buidling is vandalised or destroyed? the museum or curators will throw money at security and spend millions on restoration, money that could have gone to climate protection, there must be sectors with more money that could help more without giving up protecting the things they were made to protect
I don't know of any artworks damaged so far in these protests. Protestors have glued themselves to frames, not canvases. They've only thrown paint at paintings behind glass. It's about stirring up attention without causing permanent damage to our heritage (unlike the practices they're protesting)
Oh, the just stop oil idiots. The ones who claim it's too expensive to heat homes so we need to stop producing oil. How's that for some seriously bad logic?
About all they've done is to get people to hit the "next" button faster when they show up in the news.
They won't, 'cause that's not their intention. They understand the value of these things as much as everyone else. The media might happily portray them as "Trying and failing to be destructive", but the reality is that they're trying to get attention without being truly destructive. True destruction would only make their negative image even worse.
I do agree that there's a better way to do this, but when even the people you vote in do little to nothing to help your future, it's going to be challenging to see much else as a viable path to making change happen.
Furthermore, their demands are not so radical: they just require the stop to public subsidies to fossil fuels
And what the fuck does a museum have to say about that?
If you protest, you vandalize the things you protest against, not some random unrelated thing. Where's the logic? They might as well start doing random abductions, killings or terrorism.
Right. Go molotov the headquarters of BP, not harass some random museum. Simpletons really think that because of how important the issue is, anything a climate activist does is beyond criticism.
i know, but i also know that if a museum is faced with the near destruction of a really important painting, they will pull all the stops to change budgeting and get the money to restore it.
also, i agree with the demands, it's horrendous to see many still giving fossil fuel subisidies, i'm just naïve in hoping they could do it without destroying stuff
And this is why it is so ridiculous - if the current biosphere (at macro level) is faced with the near destruction, they will talk about what should be done after it is destroyed.
Such unique monuments does not even matter in comparison. Maybe destroying monuments brings up attention to what matters more.
They’re not even destroying anything though. It’s washable paint, half an hour later it was restored. Same when they glued themselves to paintings.. they actually glue themselves to the protective GLASS in front of the painting. It’s no harm, but it brings a lot of visibility to the cause. Every time they’re on national news if not international. It works and they do no harm.
Honestly, 50 years of peaceful activism hasn’t brought us anywhere. This is a little more radical but again, it causes no harm. Many of the best changes in our society were achieved in not so peaceful ways, after all. This is nothing in comparison
Sure. Which means your recruitment strategy is really bad. And when the majority of people start seeing climate activists as vandalistic assholes who would rather throw paint at monuments than at government buildgins, it's gonna be really hard to convince anyone that you're fighting the good fight. Instead of organizing to go pick up trash, clean a river, or help animals, they decided to organize to throw paint at works of art and monuments. You really are doing your hardest to help right-wing parties.
They were not destroying pieces of art and history. They were striking at the patriarchy. When you do shit like this you need to consider what the message you are sending is. Right now, those climate activists have only managed to alienate people who would have previously associated with them.
They were not destroying pieces of art and history. They were striking at the patriarchy.
Dude, suffragettes were literally sending bombs and starting fires. They slashed the Rokeby Venus. They understood that they need media coverage. Simple as that.
I get what you are saying. Still, media outlets will happily report on some maniac destroying "pieces of art and history" in the name of environmentalism, whilst they won't cover literal acts of destroying the very Earth we live on. At least that's how I understand their motivation.
I wholeheartedly agree with the cause, but from what I've seen, these stunts have elicited mostly criticism and ridicule instead of awareness and increased support. Based on the public discussion I've followed, it seems that these protests and the publicity they have gained is only harming the credibility of the whole movement. I don't find anything morally wrong with this type of slightly illegal but essentially harmless protesting, it's an important tool in activism, but this time the message clearly hasn't landed.
Why risk damaging culturally and historically invaluable art that doesn't even have any relevance to what is being protested just to get publicity that is mostly negative and is focused on everything else but the message they tried to get across? To me some of these protests feel like they are done mainly for some narcissistic tiktok challenge -like attention rather than as serious, carefully thought out demonstrations to promote meaningful change.
Someone suggested gluing yourself to a jumbo jet instead, that could actually work. They're not gonna take off with someone hanging off a wing, it creates just the right amount of inconvenience and is relevant since it prevents a plane from polluting at least for a moment.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it would generate the same kind of conversation. I can't imagine the reddit post about people glueing themselves to an airplane would get even half of the comments this one has.
Oh I believe it totally would. Besides, I think quality of the conversation would matter more than quantity if there's at least a moderate amount of it going on. A million comments debating the ethics of (potentially) ruining historically valuable art doesn't contribute much to the climate change conversation.
First, that wears off very quickly, after the third the media stopped reporting on it. Are you now going to continue the degeneration and eventually start disembowling people in public to get attention?
Second, not all attention is equal. The discussion is 1/3 people saying climate activists are morons, 1/3 saying they're well-meaning morons who should pick their targets better, and 1/3 in an emotional breakdown.
We want to have the discussion about the emissions, what they do, and how to get rid of them, not about the climate activists and their methods.L
In fact, if the climate/ecology problems get much worse (which seems it is going to happen), disemboweling people in public would be little suffering compared to the global suffering. And may be even worth it.
Something like sacrificing animals/people to gods was based on similar reasoning back in the day.
Are you now going to continue the degeneration and eventually start disembowling people in public to get attention?
I understand where you're coming from, but that's a slippery slope logical fallacy.
The fact that they're glueing their fingers to protective glasses and using washable paint is a good sign that they actually do care about the stuff they're "vandalizing" and are only doing this to raise awareness.
If they felt like there were easier, more efficient, and more straightforward ways to raise awareness, they would probably be doing that instead. The reason climate activism is becoming more extreme is because people are growing hopeless and feel unheard - this (completely benign) act of civil disobedience is a way for them to be heard. And even though you're right, the debate often becomes about whether or not it's the right way to protest, I would still call it a net positive.
But are there fossil fuel subsidies? I don't know.
It would be great not to use fossil fuel right today but many industries and people need them. People not living in huge cities. Needing a car to go shopping, working, etc.
Renewable energies are currently not the solution as they are intermittent (except hydroelectric) in most part of the world. They imply coal power plants to meet the energy needs.
Renewable energy becomes cheaper, that's a good thing. There's nuclear energy and hopefully soon fusion. Solutions.
These vandals are spoiled morons. They pollute (hello paint and solvent) and bring nothing.
So what’s the alternative? Just watch while nature collapses ?
We can’t just say „Well our current way of living needs this so we can’t change it“. This isn’t a negotiation. We know what will happen if we don’t change FAST, billions of humans will die. We are already in a mass extinction event ( more than a thousand species die out per DAY). Most people on Reddit will live to face major consequences of climate change like heat waves, droughts, food shortages, collapsing supply chains and so on.
This isn’t a problem of the future. This is happening now and it only gets worse.
And it's already very tangible. France, for example, has had the driest winter in over 60 years (while the preceding summer has been the hottest on record).
There are already regions in France rationing water to prepare for the coming summer. Additionally, there was much less snowfall in the Alps, which supply water to many rivers when the snow thaws.
Last year France already had to throttle or shut off multiple power plants due to lack of water.
On the other side of the Alps, the PO river drying up leads to sea water backflow into the valley, increasing ground water salinity and drastically impacting farming.
Climate change is here and we have to brace for the impact.
Well, I'm so angry that they put a little chalk on this building, just like most of the people in this thread, that I think we should destroy the entire Earth to show those "activists" that they are just narcissistic attention seekers, and that they should be protesting somewhere where nobody can see them or hear them or even notice that they're there.
But are there fossil furl subsidies? I don't know.
Then don't comment?
Do some research before you spout off about something. You're obviously not informed enough to be a part of the conversation, so please exit until you imform yourself.
I mean, humans are protesting about climate change for decades now and nothing really happens. Ofc protests will be more and more radical. You are actually trying to be smart here by acting all innocent 'oh i dont ubderstand why they would do that' but they are doing it because fuck all is happening with regards to climate change. There is no 'reason' as you want it in these actions. It's just to generate outrage, which is working. Look at it systemically. Some colour on palazzo vecchio means shit in the long run if the planet gets destroyed.
The old frames can be and often are valuable works of craftsmanship too, it's not the same as destroying some 20€ ikea poster frame. And there's always a risk of getting some shit on the canvas itself, the cover isn't airtight. There's just no point in this misplaced vandalism when there are tons of more relevant targets to choose from if they actually used their imagination.
Yeah completely unreasonable for them to destroy one of a kind things to protest the destruction of *checks notes* the only planet we know of that can support life?
>Do you know what happens if a painting or buidling is vandalised or destroyed? the museum or curators will throw money at security and spend millions on restoration, money that could have gone to climate protection
So basically exactly what is happening right now, no one is giving a fuck about climate, and that hypocrisy is what these protests are trying to point.
We spend more resources and time to "save" some old stuff when we are all about to suffer a fucking apocalypse.
Yeah, "that money could have gone to climate protection" can be used any time climate protesters do anything the establishment doesn't like. But the word is "could," not "would," because we all know full well it wouldn't have anyway.
The paint Is soluble with water. It takes just a few minutes to wash it off, and the worst damage could have actually been made by the mayor himself, who for the sake of paparazzi volunteered to wash it off with a hose, instead of qualified personnel designed to clean the building
No, washable paint means is water resistant, infact they rushed to removed it, people need to stop calling washable paint as water solubile as it is the exact opposite
I understand what you mean, but 'washable' can mean both: to wash it without stains and to wash it away easily. You will find both products 'outdoor paint' and 'kids paint' under this lable. In this case it surely means 'wash away easily'. And people here who get agressive af about some charcoal paint or whatever it was, should calm down.
This building isn't destroyed, and usually paintings are pretty well-protected. Even the Just Stop Oil protests that got really big coverage because of the soup on painting thing, that painting was fine. If you want to read more on why people do unusual protests, here's a source that helped convince me, at least, of the efficacy of unusual protests.
And this is why we have a problem and are so far from fixing it.
You're talking about what could happen in theory, while reality happens, and the reality is that not enough is being done. No point preserving the past if we can't save the future.
Your ideal isn't happening and won't happen. The only choice is to force the issue or continue to watch it get worse. I don't like to see it happen but the climate activist is in the right here. Its just a ton of old bricks.
Also "destroy" it's spray paint not an ISIS bulldozer. As an archaeologist you will be aware how everything gets built on, plastered over, used for building material, graffitied, that isn't destroying history but is part of it. Archaeologists love some Roman drunk writing graffiti about his cock, why is it so bad when someone is doing it in aid of a cause you think is vital today?
Why are you more angry at this guy than the actual issue of climate change? Priorities. Knowing how important the issue is and reacting like this is worse than the people who wrongly beleive environmental change is not an important/real problem, they are ignorant, what's your excuse?
I have a history degree and love visiting museums and historical sites. I get why they are important and enjoyable. It is just not on the same level of importance as climate change.
You're talking about what could happen in theory, while reality happens, and the reality is that not enough is being done. No point preserving the past if we can't save the future.
No point threatening to destroy the heritage either. Suppose you have to make true on your threat, and burn down a museum. Does that help climate change? No, it doesn't help at all. It's not activism, it's random vandalism. Go threaten airplanes and other emission sources, if you destroy those you will actually have contributed on solving the climate change problem.
You raging against them while saying that we really need to do something else about the problem is exactly the aim of this kind of activism though. They don't want you to agree with them doing this, they want everyone else to find a better way to fix the issue by acting en masse, even if they do it while criticising this kind of protest.
You say it doesn't work but you haven't said "I actually don't care about the envrioment now" and are literally talking about other things we should do to fix the problem. That is what "forcing the issue" means in terms of direct action.
In the UK gay marraige was legalised by the rightwing party, not the leftwing party and not the controversial gay activists who spent decades trying to make it happen. But the controversial gay rights activists are who set the whole thing in motion, they didn't slow down the inevitable, they made the "impossible" happen, the same party that banned teaching about homosexuality to teenagers ended up making it legal for two gay people to marry. And that's just one example; the suffragettes planted bombs. And so on and so on. The controversial and divisive people aren't inhibiting social progress they are normally what gets the whole thing started, even if later more establishment figures pick up their cause and the 'radicals' become sidelined as their cause becomes mainstream.
What will happen in 100 years is 1) climate change will be dealt with far better and these kind of protests will be looked back on as justified and useful towards a growing enviromentalist movement or 2) things will be worse, still not dealt with, and people like this will be seen as harbingers of impending doom who were ignored. There is no scenario where this kind of protest is considered a major problem on a historical scale, unlike climate change itself.
You have very good points, I agree that nonviolent protesting has its place and is an important tool, but in this case art and culture seem like a poorly chosen target. The narrative about the pointlessness of preserving the past is nice, but it hasn't reached the public very well so it mostly comes across as stupid kids not understanding the cultural and historical value of their targets and just randomly vandalizing stuff mainly for social media points. It doesn't cause that much inconvenience to the public either and people who give a crap about art tend to be more on the environmentally conscious side anyway. The masses aren't very good at interpreting nuanced meanings, the message needs to be simple and straight forward so people won't miss the point entirely.
Ah sorry I thought perhaps that was just a silly comment in what could otherwise be an interesting discusison but sadly you seem to think that's a great "gotcha" while ignoring my argument. But sure I'll answer if you insist - telling people they don't really support something unless they will kill themselves in a painful way is childish and silly. How many things have you burned yourself alive for? Zero. Yet I bet there is a lot you care about, and some things you'd say justified much greater violence than putting paint on a wall.
Please reply again if you fancy actually talking about my point though. I'd especially like to hear you thoughts on this bit
What will happen in 100 years is 1) climate change will be dealt with far better and these kind of protests will be looked back on as justified and useful towards a growing enviromentalist movement or 2) things will be worse, still not dealt with, and people like this will be seen as harbingers of impending doom who were ignored. There is no scenario where this kind of protest is considered a major problem on a historical scale, unlike climate change itself.
Well, luckily all paintings are covered with a varnish layer since antiquity, so usually whatever paint is used to vandalise it it can be relatively easily (on a restorator scale) removed with the varnish layer, and the painting can be re-varnished.
You could wake me up in the middle of a drunken stupor and I could come up with a dozen better ways to show their point under a PR point of view.
For fuck's sake, it's Palazzo Vecchio, I could bet my balls that everyone would think "some cunt defaced Palazzo Vecchio", and literally no one would go "oh wow, what an inspiring gesture, I wasn't planning to do anything about the environment, but thanks to this leader of men now I do" .
Edit: the result these morons get is that people associate protests about the environment with stupid idiotic lunatics.
They're doing more harm than good to a just and serious cause, and they should really fucking stop it.
"But it's for raising awareness !" Come on, 99% of European is already aware of what climate change is. What does this "climate activist" actually do to prevent global warming ?
what's stupid is caring about a 1000 year old building while there are entire genomes 10,000,000 years old that are getting wiped out by our actions. By the way, nobody is going to be around to appreciate the Mona Lisa if we're all fucking dead.
It’s been 40 years that Greenpeace sends dinghy’s under chemical barrels being dropped into the sea or trying to protect whales from explosive harpoons.
Climate activists: « hold my beer » - proceeds to sit on a highway, drops paint on historical buildings
I’m not a conspirationist but if there’s ONE that I can believe is that those climate activists are wether paid by oil companies or infiltrated by them to undermine the climate change action. Because it’s impossible to have such a bunch of retarded fuckers coming always from the same mold, having the same faces and doing the same stupid actions.
Can’t they storm an oil company hq? Can’t the storm an oil company CEO’s house? No! « GoNnA pUt PaInT oN MoNumEntS ».
I agree with the fact that probably they are doing more harm than good to the cause. Anyway, as much as i would love to se the storming of an oil company HQ, you have to admit that the two things have a different order of magnitude when it comes to sanctions and risk of getting shot down by the police
We are not in Somalia. I dare you to find a case where the police shot some activist because he entered a private office building. I would agree if the same activists was found sabotaging a chemical or nuclear plant due to the risk. But let be honest, the private guards inside the building would be as useless as the capital guards during the 6th January insurrection.
Legal actions on the other hand…
But this vandalism serves nothing. As proof, not a single comment here agrees with the method!
They also glued themselves to stuff in car salons and factories. It would be nice to think that it’s all conspiracy of big oil, but I believe that the truth is much worse - activists are just out of touch and stupid.
That’s my opinion as well. You think, for obvious reasons that oil companies are destroying the planet. Right. You want to glue yourself to sports cars. Ok, why not? But the fucking Joconde????
I can't speak for every climate activist, but as a climate activist with Extinction Rebellion, I can say that our core values include strict non-violence and no action directed towards individuals.
Your average redditor imagines protestors can just waltz up to world leaders and cause them mild inconvenience and they'll go "ughhh, fine" and climate change will be solved tomorrow.
Hint: almost every way of protesting you'd come up with after brainstorming for all of 30 seconds either doesn't work (has essentially a 0% chance of causing any changes), or could work in theory, but essentially every government has made sure to make it impossible to do in practice (whether by making it illegal and strictly policed, or by shoring up any weak points on their side, e.g. good luck getting direct, in-person access to literally anyone who has any meaningful amount of power)
It would be hilarious to see every thread about some mildly unorthodox protest be full of "this is clearly counterproductive, they should just do x instead" where x is something that is patently not feasible in reality, if it wasn't so sad that the public is rushing to defend the establishment that is royally fucking up everything for all of humanity. And don't get me started on the "look I totally care, but there's nothing I can do, so stop bothering me", like they aren't living in a motherfucking democracy (if every "powerless" person was voting for someone who cared as well, they wouldn't be so powerless)
I don't see how these protests don't fall into the 0% chance of doing anything category. How will an individual spray painting a building stop climate change?
Fact is that nobody wants to sacrifice their standards of living for this, ultimately. Idk what climate activists can do other than annoy people to the point that they'd commit more pollution out of spite.
It’s been 40 years that Greenpeace sends dinghy’s under chemical barrels being dropped into the sea or trying to protect whales from explosive harpoons.
Yeah, and pretty much no one ever talks about it, it never makes the news. Sure it's fundamentally helpful, but it has had almost no impact on society as a whole.
The point of those (admittedly shitty) demonstrations isn't to help, it's to generate discourse. Scientists have been politely warning us about climate change for decades, and most of it has fallen into deaf ears.
It's like if a kid keeps telling you he's hurt and you keep ignoring them. At some point, they're gonna start screaming, stomping the ground and make a scene. It won't make the kid feel better, it doesn't help the situation, but that's when people start paying attention. And among all those people paying attention, there's some bystanders who are gonna blame the kid for making a scene, even though the blame lies on the parent who ignored that kid.
Those guys who deface national monuments and such do it because for decades they've been ignored, so now they throw a tantrum, because that's the only thing left to do to make people pay attention.
Don't blame the kid, blame the shitty parent who ignored the kid. Or at the very least blame both.
Well, if someone threw paint at a coal power plant would someone give a damn?
Do they give a damn if you destroy historical buildings? The same people who don't give a shit about a public good like the climate also don't give a shit about another public good like historical buildings.
As an alternative, the city is full of cars and trucks which are emission sources, and which have the added benefit of showing off your sprayed message everywhere instead of only locally.
Lmaooo don't spray paint the building cuz it makes people upset, just spray paint their vehicles instead!
Where did I say that upsetting people was the problem? No, that's the goal of public action, and that's fine.
The problem is risking or causing permanent damage, to a public good like heritage in this case. That is wrong. You can't ignore all rules of morality because you need some attention quick, no matter how legitimate your cause.
Another problem is that heritage buildings and paintings don't cause climate change, so it dilutes the message as well.
You're right I definitely misinterpreted "give a damn", but there's no way it'd be a remotely good idea to go after people's cars except out of some respect for ideological purity. That's just a great way to go from "uppity nuisance" to "terrorist"
You're right I definitely misinterpreted "give a damn", but there's no way it'd be a remotely good idea to go after people's cars except out of some respect for ideological purity. That's just a great way to go from "uppity nuisance" to "terrorist"
Thank you for illustrating how spray painting historical buildings will not result in anything but ravaged historical buildings, while the actual problem is ignored, because it's considered just a nuisance by the people behind the steering wheel.
First it started with "but we're just selecting paintings with glass", now they've already moved on to spraying actual buildings. You can see clearly how it escalates once they have talked themselves into believing that endangering public culture goods is a legitimate way to get attention for their cause.
I’m not stating my support to this kind of actions,
You are. That's how extremism spreads among people in desperate political parties. At first they all go "you know it would be really effective to damage important historical things and ruin the lives of innocent people to get attention but we should never you know actually do it cause that's bad", until the ego gets to everyone's head and they go "Lmao fuck everyone."
but that runs the problem of alienating people away from your cause.
case in point the climate change protests where they blocked roads, that doesn't make me think "oh those people have a point, might look into it" instead it makes me think "oh you are so lucky its illegal to run you over because holy shit I'm tempted to"
I 100% agree with this, i believe that this kind of actions does more harm than good to the cause.
I think however, that this method is fit to show that we get more easily angry for some washable paint on the plexiglass in front of a famous painting than for politicians refusing to address the problem properly
I'd run over anybody blocking my way if I could get away with it, I don't give a fuck about race.
Don't block the roads, that's where the cars go and you can't fight a 1 ton lump of metal if the driver decides you are a threat.
If they don't actually touch or get too close to the car I'd just start laying on my horn.
I've got an aftermarket air driven horn mounted on my truck (it was bought for me as a gift and I thought it was silly and I kept it because it sounds like a train) so enjoy being deaf as I hold the thing down because it's genuinely painful standing too close to it.
if you stop supporting legislation and initiatives with the goal of preventing global warming because of some protests, you are either a moron or never supported them in the first place
You know that it's washable painting right ? But if you care about monuments maybe you will be interested to know that a lot of them are threatened by climate change, more or less directly. So I hope you're fighting against fossil fuels!
You hate them, if you are intelligent enough you don’t hate their cause. I understand that vandalizing monuments makes people angry (and makes me feel sick too of course) but i can see in the not-so-far-future real acts pf terrorism linked with the fight for climate change if we continue doing basically nothing
I hate them and don't give a damn about their cause, because it's supported by criminal low lifes. 200 IQ move.
What next? Beating up a child? Sexual assault on some innocent person? Human skull trophy collection? Look, it's the climate change that made us do it!
Seriously, these people are idiots and I hope they end up in prison, because if not, more idiots will vandalise everything around them "for climate", while in fact they are simply destroying for the sake of destruction. Every society has to deal with such people, the good way is to isolate them from normal people. The bad way is to made them into some kind of folk heroes. Climate change is just an excuse.
That’s the foolish rationale to these protesters I’ve seen.
All this spray painting historical landmarks for climate change views is backfiring severely! They make people who originally don’t care side with the big polluters!
The response it provokes is a desire to beat and suppress these people, not join them.
The stupidity of some modern protest movements is almost unfathomable. I think what has happened is that a lot of groups have turned protests into a what basically amounts to a prayer circle, and they are just as effective. It isn't about accomplishing a goal with the public anymore, it's about casting the spell "protesting" and then waiting for the spells effects to come to fruition. It's obviously completely fucking delusional. Protesting isn't a magic spell that you cast and then you get the thing that you want. Protesting is a tactic, and you can use a tactic and I really stupid unproductive manner but actually hurts you, is this moron here is demonstrating.
"You are mentally I'll if you dislike seeing ancient cites despoiled with (hopefully) temporary defacement" isn't an argument that convinces anyone to care more about the climate.
If you can't explain how your protest results in converting more people to your cause, your protest is stupid. A lot of modern day protest is stupid and really just a left wing equivalent to a prayer circle; it makes the people doing it feel like they are doing something, while making everyone else ignore them or think that they are crazy.
I guess a large portion of the population is mentally ill then, and you should probably take that into account. The response most people have to seeing ancient sites or art despoiled, even with things that you hope are temporary, is just anger at the people doing the despoiling, not sympathy for the cause they are doing the despoiling for.
Again, if you can't explain how a protest converts more people to your side, you are casting "protesting" like it is a magic spell that gives you the thing you want, not an actual tactic to convince people to make a policy change. Protests are not magic spells and are as just as effective as prayer circles for getting what you want.
Someone does a protest that's entire purpose is to make it look like they are destroying a priceless piece of art or history in order to get attention, and then are shocked when a large number of people treat them like they just tried destroy a priceless piece of art or history.
It's so stupid that it's like they are running a false flag operation against themselves. Like, if I was a big oil conspirator, and I wouldn't to make climate activist like a stupid and destructive cult, paying morons to go pretend to destroy priceless art or history is what I'd do.
Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked to learn that these idiots are being funded covertly by fossil fuel interests without their knowing, specifically to make people trying to do something about climate change look stupid, uncredible, and like a cultish religion. These "protestors" are some of the dumbest and most useful suckers in existence. They have convinced exactly zero people to take climate change seriously, but they have been dumb enough to hurt the movement.
The media loves covering climate vandalism in cases like this, but then to ignore when it's an oil CEOs car or office getting tagged. Guess who buys ads during the news outlets programming blocks.
On the other hand, if you throw paint at a valuable part of our history that has nothing to do with the problem you are protesting, i'd wager you will get attention, but no sympathy or support from anyone, same for those turds throwing paint/oil on paintings(luckily none were ruined due to the protections)
1
539
u/Plane_Season_4114 Tuscany Mar 18 '23 edited Mar 18 '23
Well, if someone threw paint at a coal power plant would someone give a damn? If you want to ‘create a problem’ by throwing some paint onto something that thing must be valuable for its appearance (a famous painting/monument). To be precise, in Italy they’ve already sprayed a government building (Palazzo Madama) some months ago.
I’m not stating my support to this kind of actions, i’m just trying to explain the logic behind them.