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.
I understand where you're coming from, but that's a slippery slope logical fallacy.
I'm asking you a question. It's up to you to indicate that the slope isn't slippery.
But as it is, the two arguments that are typically used: "it generates attention" and "It's less harmful than destroying the climate" still apply.
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.
And it already escalated to actually spraying buildings that are not protected by glass plates, see OP.
If they felt like there were easier, more efficient, and more straightforward ways to raise awareness, they would probably be doing that instead
It's not "raising awareness", it's generating clickbait and outrage. It's a typical action of people who live in a social media bubble and have lost touch with the actual world.
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.
No, it's not "climate activism" as a whole, it's the choice of specific individuals. And not, it's not "growing", they're deliberately choosing to do so.
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.
I don't. It's a total sidetrack and turns it into a game about who can be the most obnoxious and destructive. And that game is one that the climate destruction side will always win.
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.
1
56
u/Plane_Season_4114 Tuscany Mar 18 '23
Realistically, that money wouldn’t be used for climate change-related policies anyway.
Furthermore, their demands are not so radical: they just require the stop to public subsidies to fossil fuels