Two Just Stop Oil supporters have painted multiple private jets on the airfield where Taylor Swift’s jet landed mere hours before. They are demanding that the incoming UK government commit to working with other governments to agree an equitable plan to end the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030. [1] At
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.
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?
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
Hey, just went back to this conversation now that the UNESCO report claims that the highway construction project is putting Stonehenge in real danger. What’s your opinion on that?
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?
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.
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
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
Ugh I HATE it when my glass gets souped.
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
Hey, just went back to this conversation now that the UNESCO report claims that the highway construction project is putting Stonehenge in real danger. What’s your opinion on that?
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?
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.
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
They do that too.
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”?
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
But they’re…rocks!
Goddammit they’re MINERALS, Marie!
So are caves, yet humans can very easily cause damage to them accidentally, let alone deliberately
Ah, I can feel that lemmy is going mainstream.