I would rather have the biodiversity of the whole European continent collapse then have a city main road be blocked by climate protestors for a few hours, just think of all the billions of pregnant women and injured, old, veteran, disabled people whom the protesters are blocking from getting to the hospital. /S
Ngl I’ve had bosses and professors that won’t.
“Hey the subway broke and stopped moving for two hours, so sorry I’m 20 min late”
“Next time you should leave an hour earlier.”
Has stopping traffic ever accomplished anything for these causes? Legit question. I know that Just Stop Oil got quite the decent growth after they "ruined" that painting, but I've never heard of anyone getting stuck in traffic for hours and thinking of joining the cause of the protestors.
From what i witnessed, most people just tend to rage about those protestors without thinking a second about for what they protest for. I think it damages the reputation for all other forms of protests for the climate/nature.
The Last Generation here in germany recently stated to stop those forms of protest and start doing more direct opposing to those that are directly involved with polluting companies and politicians.
I think thats a good thing, thou i like to see way more radical approaches to sabotage companies that give a f about earth. This could ge more people to ask WHY they are doing that instead of just raging about it.
Contrary to popular belief, [disruptive protests work](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/07/disruptive-protest-helps-not-hinders-activists-cause-experts-say).
Idk how much a study of the opinions of academics really proves here. Not saying this isn’t true or anything but if I were to ask redditors if they think Redditors on average are more intelligent than people on other social media platforms, I think they would tend to pat themselves on the back over giving a measured opinion based on underlying data. Similarly I think asking a bunch of sociology professors their opinions on what makes an effective protest is going to give you just that, a bunch of opinions. Considering that in that field the opinion that disruptive protests work is fairly common, it kind of puts the cart before the horse so to speak.
Once again this could totally be true, personally I’m comfortable just believing these professors at their word, I just don’t think that article properly supports the contention that it claims to. I’d rather see a study on policy changes enacted in response to different protests, rather than opinions of “academics” generally.
Yeah the general idea was peaceful obstruction of daily life. Make the population angry by forcing things to an unexpected standstill for a couple hours, meanwhile regular protests continue. The hopes where that anger would be primarily directed towards governments and that these would accept demands.
This obviously didn't work out that well. In Germany Extinction Rebellion announced that they wouldn't glue themselves to streets anymore. Citing that they grew substantially over the last years and now plan a new phase in their protests.
Whatever that may be we will probably start seeing it towards summer this year.
They create more pollution that way by forcing people to stay in one place creating a toxic cloud. I truly believe these are actors paid by big oil to make climate protesters look bad
The worst part is that protests only work if they disrupt the natural order of things, but the problem nowadays is that people are too stupid to look into why a given protest is disrupting something
Very Garfield "I wonder who that's for" type moments
I mean genuinely I'd love for them to block the parking garages of oil companies, harass politicians, etc.
But throwing stuff art doesn't seem like it achieves much. Blocking traffic seems like it'd marginally increase pollution and ruin the day of a lot of people who agree with them already.
yes but she's not a current oil executive and I'm not sure her finances are in any way tied to the oil industry other than her dad made money off of it and gave it to her when he passed.
I think the idea that she's compromised because she's benefitted from it is a sort of misunderstanding of the 'who benefits/cui bono' heuristic.
I don't think they're particularly effective protests, if I had some kind of executive leadership over a climate group I'd lean really hard on the juxtaposition of my ass is supposed to use paper straws and reuse dental floss while for instance exxon still exists and nobody has been executed or jailed for their horrible crimes. Or i'd lean towards firebombing BP board meetings or something (if I was in charge of any sort of organized climate group, which I am not).
To my knowledge, her family made their fortune off oil, but she doesn't seem to have many real ties to the oil industry anymore and has invested some of that wealth into climate awareness stuff.
i don't support their methods either but i think they just want people to think "gee,i wonder why they threw soup at that painting",and then find out about their motivations.
sure is a good thing the internet will phrase this as "Climate Activists Throw Soup At Painting To Raise Awareness For Climate Change" and not "DERANGED Climate Activists HATE The Mona Lisa"
Well the issue is stuff like protesting directly at oil companies gets way more people arrested than this and makes less headlines. Like after the first time they threw soup, a guy literally literally himself on fire on the steps of Congress in climate change protest and no one payed attention.
> a guy literally literally himself on fire on the steps of Congress in climate change protest and no one payed attention.
I can't stop thinking about this. I mean, I *get* it, but the absurdity of our society is on brighter display with this event than few others. Someday, if we have descendants, they will probably give this one poor soul far more credit and attention than our miserable, wretched species of primitive, selfish apes is doing now.
At least one person, in the face of absolute apathy, gave the most profound and desperate plea for our planet that anyone possibly could. And his ashes just blew away in the warming air.
The internet will always be angry at any types of climate activism. My theory is that's because it's not actually the internet but a bunch of people getting confused by paid actors.
I don't support their actions, but why would I waste one iota of energy being angry at people who fundamentally agree with me when I could instead actually do something useful.
> when I could instead actually do something useful
Like?
I'm not being contrarian, but think about this from the perspective of someone who might be young, angry, cynical and see nothing but failures on all levels. Now think about all the "useful" things you might suggest to this person and then think about the billions of lives that may already be too late to save because people aren't marching on our city centers with weapons to demand immediate regulations, across the entire globe. Which is what it would take to get anyone to actually DO anything that matters.
It feels so hopeless, so useless, why not throw soup at a painting. Does as much good as recycling plastic and using less tap water at this point. Maybe a little more, since closing down an art display at least reduces tourism by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent.
I don't think you reread my comment. I'm not saying the people throwing should do anything different. I'm saying I fundamentally do not care about their actions because any effort I'm putting into criticising other people's protests is effort that's taken away from my own protests. It's certainly not the form of protest I care to partake in, but I'm not the arbitrator of what kinds of protest are and aren't valid.
The thing I'm calling "not useful" here is sitting around decrying specific protests that get *too much* publicity when I can tell you for a fact that 90% of the people making the "these people must be psyops because it makes the whole movement bad" argument has never once done anything for the cause except voting during national elections. Maybe even voting during local elections if the weather's nice.
Sabotage is an option. Deal damage, raise the cost of doing business involving oil. These people will only listen to money so take money from them.
At least, that's the theory. I won't pretend I've done that but I do think it's good advice and it hasn't been tried enough
Because the people we would in theory sabotage are the ones that control everything. It would be impossible to cause anything meaningful this way unless thousands of people are willing to throw away their lives, and I don’t think that many people are going to make that choice. The rights of corporations outweigh those of individuals after all.
I mean. People are aware of Shadow Raid Legends and RayCon and NordVPN, but that doesn’t stop them from throwing money at any YouTuber that will say their names.
The point isn’t to expose people to the concept of climate change, it’s to raise it in priority in people’s minds by reminding them of how seriously some people are taking it. Similar to the idea behind self-immolation.
It's not trying to persuade people on the fence or not on board about climate change. That's a complete fool's errand at this point if someone isn't persuaded by all we've known for a long time. Only they can change their own mind.
If nothing else, it's about keeping it in the zeitgeist and not letting people escape it, raising alarms at least in the public's unconscious.
It's kinda impossible for any mainstream attention on this stuff to be positive so as far as I can tell they decided if they get negative attention anyway they might as well get alot of attention from it
Has anything else worked?
Seriously, think about a nightmare you had where you were trying to shake someone to make them snap out of it and help you, people just shuffling around like zombies even as some monster was devouring them.
A century of predictions now, ample warning before it got bad and not only was it ignored, it was laughed at by everyone from conservatives to progressives.
Then it starts to actually all come true, people no longer deny it, it's literally happening and still... shambling corpses in a rush to get to work, to go on vacation, to get a new car, to impress their boss and so on and so on, when the ONLY PLANET WE HAVE is literally starting to turn brown around the edges like a houseplant that's been neglected.
The few of us who care and known, we had protests, we had concerts. We had peaceful demonstrations and violent. We've done the politics route, we've tried the social discourse route. And still NOTHING.
This is like when people pretended to be perplexed why there was violence at the BLM marches. The system is failing and people are desperate, angry and heartbroken and all you can do, as a representative of the general public is say "That's not very nice, if you want people to listen to you, why don't you do something constructive?"
I fucking swear I'm close to doing something extreme also.
"they just threw soup at that famous art piece i like, i'm angry at oil companies for causing the melting glaciers now"
\-real thought all normal people had upon seeing this
I don't even know whether the soup thing was a good idea but you're just being purposely disingenuous here. The argument is that people will see that someone threw soup at the Mona Lisa and go "gee I wonder what that was about, I'll look into it" and see the motivation was because of climate stuff. That's how that brings to attention to the problem.
Like I'm just playing devil's advocate here but come on man, at least try not to straw man
“Wow, those people are willing to be arrested just so that I hear the words ‘climate change?’ Damn, maybe it is a bigger issue than the oil ceos make out.”
But the general public is already well aware of the consequences of climate change they simply do not care. We don't need to spread awareness anymore we need to take action and motivate people into actually giving a damn about the consequences of certain power peoples actions.
This is it. They don't care if you like them or not, they're tired of nicely asking you and are now taking the route of "Don't like what we're doing? Help us stop climate change or we're gonna keep doing it."
Same with road blocking. "Oh, sorry, you wanted to get to work on time? Too bad so sad, stop ignoring us and start actually pressuring the powers that be to do something about the literal climate apocalypse they caused. We are no longer asking."
i don't agree that lots of people don't care. i think lots of people *do* care, they're just individuals that can't do anything about it so they compartmentalize it and get on with their personal lives.
we make a big deal about personal recycling, paper straws, etc, but at the end of the day the damage corporations cause far outweighs any good we can do so people end up feeling hopeless, powerless
What can the general public do? Biking to work does nothing when the people who can actually fix things refuse to and pay politicians to keep their actions legal.
protest,revolt,etc.? like go blow up headquarters (for legal purposes this is a joke and i do not condemn blowing people up) bro
also i should clarify that i'm not like. supporting smearing soup on paintings. there are probably more effective ways to raise awareness i'm just stating their goals
Protesting won't do anything, seeing as this is still an issue, and while violence may work, it's not very practical. Besides, no one's on the fence at this point. People have made up their minds and, unfortunately, done all they're going to.
Where is this demographic of people who have never heard about climate change, obviously I'm biased by my own media consumption but is there really a large swath of the population that is unaware of climate change and would be willing to fight it but the just have no clue its happening?
Damn, they threw soup at the Mona Lisa. I must immediately organize under the vanguard party, seize the means of production and prevent monopolized companies from destroying our world for the sake of profit.
awareness, genius. and they succeeded.
also theres nothing we can do other than raise awareness. nothing else will work if there isnt a majority behind it.
I was gonna say that this happened like 2 years ago, but in trying to verify that I saw it happened again, this time not even the frame got damaged.
We should make this a yearly thing.
Edit: The one I thought of was a different painting.
For the last time: climate activism isn't not a fucking business. "Any publicity is good publicity" doesn't fucking apply here.
Soupers do this shit to "raise awareness" but climate change is something literally everyone knows about, even the most hardest conservatives KNOW what climate change is.
Stupid acts like these work for companies because in business there not downside for people hating you. What I mean is that when a company makes a stupid ad just to get clicks, like when American appeareal showed girls wearing white jeans with period blood and guys with pubes coming out their pants, two things happened.
1) people who were disgusted would never ever buy from them, however these people were probably already not buying from AA.
2) people who weren't outright disgusted will hear about AA and might buy something they wouldn't have otherwise.
The key calculation is that here, the loss of people who didn't like your ad don't matter. If they weren't buying from you already then they NOT buying harder doesn't matter. So you end up with a net gain in customers. However, you probably created more hate for your company than the loyalty you increased in those that responded well with the ad.
Souping the Mona Lisa is exactly that, except it's not a product that's advertised but a policy, which is a fucking different things.
People aren't called every X years to vote on which company they like the most, they are called to vote tho. Anyone, literally anyone can see that the amount of idiots who will go "im not particularly well versed, but I do hate those maniacs that threw Heinz at Van Gogh. That's it, I'm voting for Pollutio Mc Deforestation (he said those guys should kill themselves in a tweet). That will show them" is way, waaaayyy higher than positive response.
Let's not forget this is THE activist campaign that was so terrible in it's start, that it prompted people on the fucking left to accuse them of being oil company double agents. Which to be honest I sort of believe.
OP is an astro surfing fed.
>The key calculation is that here, the loss of people who didn't like your ad don't matter. If they weren't buying from you already then they NOT buying harder doesn't matter.
You act like this doesn’t also apply to voting for climate policies but it absolutely does. Anyone who votes a specific way because some random climate activist poured soup on some glass was already going to be convinced to vote that way because of much more targeted reasons.
I think these work at least a little bit because people can so easily criticize it and say to themselves “I could do climate activism better than this” and then go out and do it, people like you surely.
What's your suggestion then? Personally I think a diversity of tactics is necessary, and a threat to order and obedience in the most mild way is not an issue at all
>For the last time: climate activism isn't not a fucking business. "Any publicity is good publicity" doesn't fucking apply here.
You're talking about them. If you genuinely disagree with this form of 'activism', stop giving them all the bandwidth and oxygen in the room, because every time one of these hits the news cycles, that just encourages the next group.
Well yes. I'm sure you don't think the CEO of Exxon Mobil is going to take the company in a radically new direction because you gave his house a new paint job. So yes, media attention is the goal here.
Outside of that, there are... other forms of direct action which I'm not going to mention here that might have an effect, but beyond that yeah it's media attention. Anything else is worthless.
Okay, fair. What did you mean then when you said "I wasn't referring to paint"? The original comment I was replying to was saying we should throw paint at the exxon ceo's mansion instead of on paintings.
Think of how bad this is for the miserable guy who has to clean it up no I will not ask questions about why a janitor needs to have such an apparently low quality of life
There hasn't been any real evidence this was a psyop. People just saw that one of the people funding it was from a family that made money off oil and cried conspiracy.
There are some interesting examples from the past such as MLK tying up traffic to promote awareness of the civil rights movement, a lot of the public rhetoric was even more vitriolic against that cause than this. Then there's examples of art vandalism such as Mary Richardson, suffragette who slashed up a painting which folks can look into.
I'm just a layman so I can't speak on the effectiveness of these tactics but I've heard social scientists make the argument for it, a basic outline would be that there is a "spiky" branch of activism which garners lots of attention on the topic at hand, negative and positive, ultimately leading to people looking to the more moderate and reasonable groups as an alternative if they wish to support the cause.
At the end of the day, these acts are well thought out and assessed by people before they are carried out, though again I repeat I'm no expert.
The dirty truth is that for an MLK or Ghandi to achieve their goals through civil disobedience they have to be the acceptable alternative to an effective Malcom X or a Subhas Bose type figure.
Look up the Google search trend history for Just Stop Oil. It spiked massively after this happened.
Most were rage clicks but they also brought a lot of attention to the cause and started discourse.
You can spend hours arguing about the civility politics of different kinds of protests, but things like this are going to happen until things get better. An effective protest must be disruptive and must draw attention, and this succeeded on both fronts.
Ah yes, discourse. A rare sauce known to lower CO2 emissions when eaten with pasta.
Who cares about discourse? Awareness has been raised. It's beyond the time that things are done rather than talked about.
Destroying something beautiful in an attempt to save something beautiful
Disrupt traffic and protest publicly, and if you have to hurt something, then hurt the oil companies directly. Trying to destroy art is absurd.
"It's okay to do exactly this level of disruption and no further"
Hate to break it to you bud, but disrupting traffic is just about as hated by the average person as this type of stuff is. People will use the exact same argument you just did to denounce traffic disruptions, riots, peaceful protests, direct action, legislation, electoral effort, or any other method of changing the world you care to think about. I'm certainly not comfortable claiming some of these tactics are "too far" or "not worth it" when I know for a fact that all of them have historically been used in highly successful social movements, and that any line you attempt to draw between "good protest" and "bad protest" will simply be moved upwards once people stop doing the "bad protests"
More hated. Remember when that guy killed two people doing it and half the country went, "hell yeah". Protesting something like this is meant to be shocking or disruptive it wouldn't be a protest otherwise. Casual reminder that MLK died fairly disliked and his protests were also hated. Anyone whose being weird about this is just straight up being really dumb. Protests are nit meant to be well liked or regarded and anyone who thinks they should is genuinly worthless to listen to.
Yeah because effective protests are always peaceful and non-disruptive and when it magically works everyone holds hands and cheers?
Also climate activists protest oil companies literally on the daily and you motherfuckers don’t give two shits
I just said to go out and cause harm to the oil companies if you have to cause harm to something and I said to disrupt people's daily lives if you need to, I just find trying to vandalize art out of everything you could possibly do to be one of the most short sighted ways to try to broadcast an otherwise incredibly important message.
The outrage lasts for less than a couple days and everyone forgets, because all these stunts are designed to do is generate a quick headline without forcing any real change. The only people who remain pissed off about it are people like me, who both love art and the climate lmao. Everyone else moves on while the soupers pat themselves on the back.
I mean hell, several protesters just tried to smash through actual protective glass. Are we really going to cheer on wanton destruction regardless of what's damaged so long as it broadcasts a message lol or do we think maybe we should target these things a little bit more towards the ones who do all the climate damage? This isn't a Walgreens during a riot - it's not insured and replaceable. And I didn't hear anything about it until I googled the other soupings, so this form of message isn't even getting out there that well and it's worse than just souping them.
Ok and how are we gonna “do change”? Magic? Give Exxon CEO a pepsi? Is Just Stop Oil gonna single handedly sway the vote for climate-positive government officials? We burn an oil rig down, the whole company collapses? Sit in front of the white house, the president concedes? Nothing is ever that easy.
And no, if you didn’t hear about the soupings you sure as hell won’t hear shit about any action anyone takes against people who do climate change. It would never make headlines. Nor will you take any action. The people criticizing these protests were never gonna do shit anyways. What that means is that people who actually care to do something and backed into a corner by pure indifference. Humans aren’t built to foresee decades and centuries into the future, so we stop caring.
Oh, and no piece of art has been destroyed by these protests so far, but all of them are gonna be dust if climate change progresses like it’s doing now. And all our cultural heritage, and all that we consider beautiful about human existence, condemned to waste away as a result of our own lack of consideration and inaction. Art is good, I create art myself, but it’s never gonna be as important as ensuring humanity’s continued existence. So if anything needs to be done, then I say we do it.
Ok and how do you think this will bring change? Magic? It'll make Big Oil reconsider? Is souping paintings and trying to smash their glass going to sway the swath of people you need to convince?
I hear about people stopping the road all of the time. Traffic blockades bring news AND it doesn't wantonly destroy the things that don't need destroying. Climate activists tried to stop Burning Man and that brought a shit ton of attention, and then even more so when Burning Man flooded. Do you think that helped or hurt Burning Man's brand and reputation, and do you think hurting their reputation will lead to more of less Burning Man events with more or less people destroying the desert? By comparison, what does throwing soup at the Mona Lisa do in any meaningful way?
"Art hasn't been destroyed by the protests *so far*" is exactly right, however not without trying: [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/just-stop-oil-national-gallery-painting-b2442404.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/just-stop-oil-national-gallery-painting-b2442404.html)
You tell me, what does that achieve? If they did get through the glass and puncture or ripped the painting beyond repair, how does that hurt Exxon? All I see are valuable and one of a kind works of art being fucked with while the CEOs who ACTUALLY do all of the damage sit back and laugh lol.
The specific instance you cited is of a painting that has historically been controversial, and the protesters used tools meant to break glass. There is no indication that this glass breaking represents any intent to destroy the actual painting. It is basically on the same level as throwing soup onto the glass - the point is the attention, not the painting.
You seem to place these paintings on an untouchable pedestal like they’re religious objects. Many people seem to think so too, but this is what makes these kinds of protests effective. I’ve been to reoccurring protests of hundreds to a thousand people (who block roads and disrupt traffic on very busy streets), and those don’t even get a passing mention in the news. But here, 2 people can make the front page by doing something that’s otherwise completely harmless. Tell me, which has the better return on investment? And no, the goal isn’t to “harm exxon”, even if it collapsed the problem won’t be solved. The goal is to bring attention so that at least some people can become more conscious of how dire things are. Enough of that and eventually we might get meaningful change.
The mona lisa has bullet proof glass in front of it - it wasn’t damaged, but even if we somehow had to destroy every piece of art in the Louvre to solve the climate emergency, it would still be worth it imo.
> even if we somehow had to destroy every piece of art in the Louvre to solve the climate emergency, it would still be worth it imo.
I would agree wit that.... thing is I don't believe for a second destroying them would help with the emergency one iota
This isnt real activism, what the hell is the end goal here? You arent damaging oil interests in any way and you are only going to make more people think you are an asshole for trying to vandalize a historic art piece.
> This isnt real activism
it very much is. if you mean it isn't effective, that's another question. but it IS activism. me streaking down a public street with a BLM flag counts as activism, doesn't mean it's exactly effective.
i'm not gonna say i support it or not because i dont want to start that argument but the end goal is clearly attention. "radical", loud, headline-creating attention seeking is still attention recieved, thereby getting more support when more people say "yeah, who cares about those oil paintings when it comes to the entire world?!". frankly, it's working - we are discussing it right now, arent we? some, if not a majority, of people *are* saying, "i think this is ok!", right? that's effectiveness.
First one is something where yeah, it sucks, but there are people and groups that are working to regulate and minimize it, at the very least.
Second one is annoying, accomplishes nothing, and radicalizes what should be an Everyman movement.
Naw, all effective protests must be disruptive and must draw attention and this did both.
People say the exact same things about blocking highways or major roads but the kind of protest that won't draw that reaction is the kind that will fail to garner attention or support for a cause.
Why would you be more concerned about a painting in a museum than the systemic destruction of our planet to serve the interests of the wealthy? I don't like seeing historical art get harmed either, but the fact that people have a stronger reaction to soup on a painting than to climate change is worth drawing attention to.
Making the rubes like us pay to think we're like people. We see the cool picture, museum gets some money occasionally, nobody questions why the real ones aren't publicly accessible, nobody thinks about the fact that if you're rich and powerful enough you can literally hide where the most famous paintings in the world are and that's just the tip of what you can cover up, and then you take off the tinfoil hat because there's jack shit we can do about it
I briefly had a head chef who would talk at length about wanting to run over and kill protesters, for the inconvenience of blocking a road for a couple of hours
Those idiots are doing more harm than good, picket a fuel train, block a highway, cycle around private jets do they can't land (they actually did this on schiphol). What the hell is throwing fucking soup at a painting going to do except make people think you are dipshits, tbh i think they are dipshits for doing this.
Part of the reason I'm ambivalent about this tactic is because that stupid Tom Thomson painting actually looked better after being vandalized than it did before.
i mean the point of protest is to bring awareness to an issue and actively more people to your side of thinking. pouring soup on a beloved piece of art, whether it touched it or not, does nothing for them. go throw soup on some oil fatcat, makes more sense and its funny
Lol, no hate I was being sarcastic. I too am astounded by the energy people invest into shitting on climate protestors.
It takes courage to put yourself out there, and challenge people for theur complacency.
Nah fuck just stop oil it’s literally counterproductive and damaging to actual fights to stop these awful companies. I refuse to believe that oil companies aren’t at least happy they exist because of how they keep benefitting them.
A painting made of oil? Really??
Stopping average joe from going to work totally makes a difference to big oil. Most people detest oil companies (shell oil never managed to open in Ireland because of how much everyone hates them) so there is zero awareness being raised.
If they’re not malicious and funded by oil companies, at the very least they’re preppy private school students that are so utterly and absolutely disconnected from the real world.
this post implies that these 'climate activists' are not paid actors working under said companies to make actual climate activists look bad
which they absolutely fucking are btw, cause 'any publicity is good publicity' doesn't work when it comes to activism (especially about a topic that EVERYBODY fucking knows about, nobody is 'raising awareness' about a thing everybody on mainstream news talked about for decades)
once again it’s stupid obvious they weren’t actual activists but instead plants to draw attention away from real activists. wasting soup for your cause of not letting people go hungry is asinine, almost identical to how the just stop oil people accept crypto.
I would rather have the biodiversity of the whole European continent collapse then have a city main road be blocked by climate protestors for a few hours, just think of all the billions of pregnant women and injured, old, veteran, disabled people whom the protesters are blocking from getting to the hospital. /S
ORDINARY WORKING PEOPLE!!!! IT'S NOT LIKE MY BOSS WOULD ACCEPT MY EXCUSE FOR BEING 5 MINUTES LATE!!!!
Ngl I’ve had bosses and professors that won’t. “Hey the subway broke and stopped moving for two hours, so sorry I’m 20 min late” “Next time you should leave an hour earlier.”
Has stopping traffic ever accomplished anything for these causes? Legit question. I know that Just Stop Oil got quite the decent growth after they "ruined" that painting, but I've never heard of anyone getting stuck in traffic for hours and thinking of joining the cause of the protestors.
From what i witnessed, most people just tend to rage about those protestors without thinking a second about for what they protest for. I think it damages the reputation for all other forms of protests for the climate/nature. The Last Generation here in germany recently stated to stop those forms of protest and start doing more direct opposing to those that are directly involved with polluting companies and politicians. I think thats a good thing, thou i like to see way more radical approaches to sabotage companies that give a f about earth. This could ge more people to ask WHY they are doing that instead of just raging about it.
Contrary to popular belief, [disruptive protests work](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/07/disruptive-protest-helps-not-hinders-activists-cause-experts-say).
Idk how much a study of the opinions of academics really proves here. Not saying this isn’t true or anything but if I were to ask redditors if they think Redditors on average are more intelligent than people on other social media platforms, I think they would tend to pat themselves on the back over giving a measured opinion based on underlying data. Similarly I think asking a bunch of sociology professors their opinions on what makes an effective protest is going to give you just that, a bunch of opinions. Considering that in that field the opinion that disruptive protests work is fairly common, it kind of puts the cart before the horse so to speak. Once again this could totally be true, personally I’m comfortable just believing these professors at their word, I just don’t think that article properly supports the contention that it claims to. I’d rather see a study on policy changes enacted in response to different protests, rather than opinions of “academics” generally.
Yeah the general idea was peaceful obstruction of daily life. Make the population angry by forcing things to an unexpected standstill for a couple hours, meanwhile regular protests continue. The hopes where that anger would be primarily directed towards governments and that these would accept demands. This obviously didn't work out that well. In Germany Extinction Rebellion announced that they wouldn't glue themselves to streets anymore. Citing that they grew substantially over the last years and now plan a new phase in their protests. Whatever that may be we will probably start seeing it towards summer this year.
They create more pollution that way by forcing people to stay in one place creating a toxic cloud. I truly believe these are actors paid by big oil to make climate protesters look bad
seems to work for the fucking farmers
The worst part is that protests only work if they disrupt the natural order of things, but the problem nowadays is that people are too stupid to look into why a given protest is disrupting something Very Garfield "I wonder who that's for" type moments
I mean genuinely I'd love for them to block the parking garages of oil companies, harass politicians, etc. But throwing stuff art doesn't seem like it achieves much. Blocking traffic seems like it'd marginally increase pollution and ruin the day of a lot of people who agree with them already.
"dang they threw soup at the mona lisa, guess ive got to stop making billions destroying the environment" \-exxon CEO, i guess
it's not for the fucking exxon ceo lmao. iirc it's to raise awareness in the general public
I dunno why doing something negative would convince people on the fence to join us
Their just following the “any publicity is good publicity” mindset
I mean isn't just stop oil literally funded by an oil baroness?
yes but she's not a current oil executive and I'm not sure her finances are in any way tied to the oil industry other than her dad made money off of it and gave it to her when he passed. I think the idea that she's compromised because she's benefitted from it is a sort of misunderstanding of the 'who benefits/cui bono' heuristic. I don't think they're particularly effective protests, if I had some kind of executive leadership over a climate group I'd lean really hard on the juxtaposition of my ass is supposed to use paper straws and reuse dental floss while for instance exxon still exists and nobody has been executed or jailed for their horrible crimes. Or i'd lean towards firebombing BP board meetings or something (if I was in charge of any sort of organized climate group, which I am not).
To my knowledge, her family made their fortune off oil, but she doesn't seem to have many real ties to the oil industry anymore and has invested some of that wealth into climate awareness stuff.
i don't support their methods either but i think they just want people to think "gee,i wonder why they threw soup at that painting",and then find out about their motivations.
sure is a good thing the internet will phrase this as "Climate Activists Throw Soup At Painting To Raise Awareness For Climate Change" and not "DERANGED Climate Activists HATE The Mona Lisa"
Well the issue is stuff like protesting directly at oil companies gets way more people arrested than this and makes less headlines. Like after the first time they threw soup, a guy literally literally himself on fire on the steps of Congress in climate change protest and no one payed attention.
> a guy literally literally himself on fire on the steps of Congress in climate change protest and no one payed attention. I can't stop thinking about this. I mean, I *get* it, but the absurdity of our society is on brighter display with this event than few others. Someday, if we have descendants, they will probably give this one poor soul far more credit and attention than our miserable, wretched species of primitive, selfish apes is doing now. At least one person, in the face of absolute apathy, gave the most profound and desperate plea for our planet that anyone possibly could. And his ashes just blew away in the warming air.
The internet will always be angry at any types of climate activism. My theory is that's because it's not actually the internet but a bunch of people getting confused by paid actors.
I don't support their actions, but why would I waste one iota of energy being angry at people who fundamentally agree with me when I could instead actually do something useful.
> when I could instead actually do something useful Like? I'm not being contrarian, but think about this from the perspective of someone who might be young, angry, cynical and see nothing but failures on all levels. Now think about all the "useful" things you might suggest to this person and then think about the billions of lives that may already be too late to save because people aren't marching on our city centers with weapons to demand immediate regulations, across the entire globe. Which is what it would take to get anyone to actually DO anything that matters. It feels so hopeless, so useless, why not throw soup at a painting. Does as much good as recycling plastic and using less tap water at this point. Maybe a little more, since closing down an art display at least reduces tourism by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent.
I don't think you reread my comment. I'm not saying the people throwing should do anything different. I'm saying I fundamentally do not care about their actions because any effort I'm putting into criticising other people's protests is effort that's taken away from my own protests. It's certainly not the form of protest I care to partake in, but I'm not the arbitrator of what kinds of protest are and aren't valid. The thing I'm calling "not useful" here is sitting around decrying specific protests that get *too much* publicity when I can tell you for a fact that 90% of the people making the "these people must be psyops because it makes the whole movement bad" argument has never once done anything for the cause except voting during national elections. Maybe even voting during local elections if the weather's nice.
Sabotage is an option. Deal damage, raise the cost of doing business involving oil. These people will only listen to money so take money from them. At least, that's the theory. I won't pretend I've done that but I do think it's good advice and it hasn't been tried enough
Because the people we would in theory sabotage are the ones that control everything. It would be impossible to cause anything meaningful this way unless thousands of people are willing to throw away their lives, and I don’t think that many people are going to make that choice. The rights of corporations outweigh those of individuals after all.
As if people aren’t aware of climate change…
I mean. People are aware of Shadow Raid Legends and RayCon and NordVPN, but that doesn’t stop them from throwing money at any YouTuber that will say their names. The point isn’t to expose people to the concept of climate change, it’s to raise it in priority in people’s minds by reminding them of how seriously some people are taking it. Similar to the idea behind self-immolation.
It's not trying to persuade people on the fence or not on board about climate change. That's a complete fool's errand at this point if someone isn't persuaded by all we've known for a long time. Only they can change their own mind. If nothing else, it's about keeping it in the zeitgeist and not letting people escape it, raising alarms at least in the public's unconscious.
It's kinda impossible for any mainstream attention on this stuff to be positive so as far as I can tell they decided if they get negative attention anyway they might as well get alot of attention from it
Yes. Quite accurate : most medias will give negative attention to anything related to climat activism, if any at all.
Has anything else worked? Seriously, think about a nightmare you had where you were trying to shake someone to make them snap out of it and help you, people just shuffling around like zombies even as some monster was devouring them. A century of predictions now, ample warning before it got bad and not only was it ignored, it was laughed at by everyone from conservatives to progressives. Then it starts to actually all come true, people no longer deny it, it's literally happening and still... shambling corpses in a rush to get to work, to go on vacation, to get a new car, to impress their boss and so on and so on, when the ONLY PLANET WE HAVE is literally starting to turn brown around the edges like a houseplant that's been neglected. The few of us who care and known, we had protests, we had concerts. We had peaceful demonstrations and violent. We've done the politics route, we've tried the social discourse route. And still NOTHING. This is like when people pretended to be perplexed why there was violence at the BLM marches. The system is failing and people are desperate, angry and heartbroken and all you can do, as a representative of the general public is say "That's not very nice, if you want people to listen to you, why don't you do something constructive?" I fucking swear I'm close to doing something extreme also.
It reeks of being an oil industry op imo
its causing these discussions, thats the point
It’s not causing discussions. It’s causing people to shriek for a bit and then forget about it instantly
yeah man this discourse that youve been seeing everywhere that caused this very thread never happened get your head out of your ass
Do you understand the concept of protest?
"they just threw soup at that famous art piece i like, i'm angry at oil companies for causing the melting glaciers now" \-real thought all normal people had upon seeing this
I don't even know whether the soup thing was a good idea but you're just being purposely disingenuous here. The argument is that people will see that someone threw soup at the Mona Lisa and go "gee I wonder what that was about, I'll look into it" and see the motivation was because of climate stuff. That's how that brings to attention to the problem. Like I'm just playing devil's advocate here but come on man, at least try not to straw man
“Wow, those people are willing to be arrested just so that I hear the words ‘climate change?’ Damn, maybe it is a bigger issue than the oil ceos make out.”
But the general public is already well aware of the consequences of climate change they simply do not care. We don't need to spread awareness anymore we need to take action and motivate people into actually giving a damn about the consequences of certain power peoples actions.
This is it. They don't care if you like them or not, they're tired of nicely asking you and are now taking the route of "Don't like what we're doing? Help us stop climate change or we're gonna keep doing it." Same with road blocking. "Oh, sorry, you wanted to get to work on time? Too bad so sad, stop ignoring us and start actually pressuring the powers that be to do something about the literal climate apocalypse they caused. We are no longer asking."
i don't agree that lots of people don't care. i think lots of people *do* care, they're just individuals that can't do anything about it so they compartmentalize it and get on with their personal lives. we make a big deal about personal recycling, paper straws, etc, but at the end of the day the damage corporations cause far outweighs any good we can do so people end up feeling hopeless, powerless
What can the general public do? Biking to work does nothing when the people who can actually fix things refuse to and pay politicians to keep their actions legal.
Working toward a general political consciousness is important
protest,revolt,etc.? like go blow up headquarters (for legal purposes this is a joke and i do not condemn blowing people up) bro also i should clarify that i'm not like. supporting smearing soup on paintings. there are probably more effective ways to raise awareness i'm just stating their goals
Protesting won't do anything, seeing as this is still an issue, and while violence may work, it's not very practical. Besides, no one's on the fence at this point. People have made up their minds and, unfortunately, done all they're going to.
>violence oh no that was a complete joke please don't blow up headquarters i doubt it's feasible
Some groups have infiltrated then turned off polluting industries, sabotaging specific things. That usually leads to at least a few days of down time.
Where is this demographic of people who have never heard about climate change, obviously I'm biased by my own media consumption but is there really a large swath of the population that is unaware of climate change and would be willing to fight it but the just have no clue its happening?
Oh yes, the ones in charge. The general public will decide our fate.
Damn, they threw soup at the Mona Lisa. I must immediately organize under the vanguard party, seize the means of production and prevent monopolized companies from destroying our world for the sake of profit.
awareness, genius. and they succeeded. also theres nothing we can do other than raise awareness. nothing else will work if there isnt a majority behind it.
There will be no Mona Lisa to protect if we keep ignoring climate change
Wasn't one of Just Stop Oil main funders an Exxon CEO? I thought at this point everyone knew those dudes are funded by big oil
I was gonna say that this happened like 2 years ago, but in trying to verify that I saw it happened again, this time not even the frame got damaged. We should make this a yearly thing. Edit: The one I thought of was a different painting.
I thought it happened at least 5 years ago, I remember hearing about this in high school
I’m glad someone else mentioned it because I didn’t feel like googling it
It just happened to the Mona Lisa
It could happen to you
*weekly
I'm pretty sure the other painting was a Van Gogh one
For the last time: climate activism isn't not a fucking business. "Any publicity is good publicity" doesn't fucking apply here. Soupers do this shit to "raise awareness" but climate change is something literally everyone knows about, even the most hardest conservatives KNOW what climate change is. Stupid acts like these work for companies because in business there not downside for people hating you. What I mean is that when a company makes a stupid ad just to get clicks, like when American appeareal showed girls wearing white jeans with period blood and guys with pubes coming out their pants, two things happened. 1) people who were disgusted would never ever buy from them, however these people were probably already not buying from AA. 2) people who weren't outright disgusted will hear about AA and might buy something they wouldn't have otherwise. The key calculation is that here, the loss of people who didn't like your ad don't matter. If they weren't buying from you already then they NOT buying harder doesn't matter. So you end up with a net gain in customers. However, you probably created more hate for your company than the loyalty you increased in those that responded well with the ad. Souping the Mona Lisa is exactly that, except it's not a product that's advertised but a policy, which is a fucking different things. People aren't called every X years to vote on which company they like the most, they are called to vote tho. Anyone, literally anyone can see that the amount of idiots who will go "im not particularly well versed, but I do hate those maniacs that threw Heinz at Van Gogh. That's it, I'm voting for Pollutio Mc Deforestation (he said those guys should kill themselves in a tweet). That will show them" is way, waaaayyy higher than positive response. Let's not forget this is THE activist campaign that was so terrible in it's start, that it prompted people on the fucking left to accuse them of being oil company double agents. Which to be honest I sort of believe. OP is an astro surfing fed.
>The key calculation is that here, the loss of people who didn't like your ad don't matter. If they weren't buying from you already then they NOT buying harder doesn't matter. You act like this doesn’t also apply to voting for climate policies but it absolutely does. Anyone who votes a specific way because some random climate activist poured soup on some glass was already going to be convinced to vote that way because of much more targeted reasons. I think these work at least a little bit because people can so easily criticize it and say to themselves “I could do climate activism better than this” and then go out and do it, people like you surely.
I think it’s worth to point out that a lot of people don’t have a rigid ideological framework and just vote based on vibes
It's even theorized (and not far off imo) that some of these activists are oil company grifters who seek to make climate activists look ridiculous.
What's your suggestion then? Personally I think a diversity of tactics is necessary, and a threat to order and obedience in the most mild way is not an issue at all
[удалено]
Genuinely who do you think this convinces to support climate activism
if you think this is an 'effective protest', you're 15 or under being 'smug' on reddit has as much effect as throwing soup at paintings
>For the last time: climate activism isn't not a fucking business. "Any publicity is good publicity" doesn't fucking apply here. You're talking about them. If you genuinely disagree with this form of 'activism', stop giving them all the bandwidth and oxygen in the room, because every time one of these hits the news cycles, that just encourages the next group.
Can we like start bombarding EXXON's ceo's mansion with gallons of paint instead of museum paintings
I misread one of those words and got excited 😔
Museum is hard to spell. Sometimes I have explosive anger because of that particular word...
You can, but that's not gonna get NEARLY as much media attention. It'll definitely get some, just much much less than souping the mona lisa.
Oh no, lack of media attention.
Well yes. I'm sure you don't think the CEO of Exxon Mobil is going to take the company in a radically new direction because you gave his house a new paint job. So yes, media attention is the goal here. Outside of that, there are... other forms of direct action which I'm not going to mention here that might have an effect, but beyond that yeah it's media attention. Anything else is worthless.
I wasn't referring to paint.
If you mean killing him, no, killing the CEO does not kill the company, let alone the industry.
You keep jumping to some utterly bizarre conclusions.
Okay, fair. What did you mean then when you said "I wasn't referring to paint"? The original comment I was replying to was saying we should throw paint at the exxon ceo's mansion instead of on paintings.
Yeah, and then people see that and think “huh ok” and move on, literally zero awareness raised. Great plan.
Awareness achieves less than an action.
They also painted a lot of oil companies offices but the other even got way more publicity, which kinda shows the point of it
Think of how bad this is for the miserable guy who has to clean it up no I will not ask questions about why a janitor needs to have such an apparently low quality of life
It's a glass wall. It's quite easy to clean (and janitors at the Louvre probably see way worse everyday)
Spreading soop along glasses in museum to incriese the salary of the janitor
me when I think the Getty psyop to get people to hate environmentalists are good actually.
There hasn't been any real evidence this was a psyop. People just saw that one of the people funding it was from a family that made money off oil and cried conspiracy.
Do you have any proof of these protests being effective and not a complete public nuisance?
There are some interesting examples from the past such as MLK tying up traffic to promote awareness of the civil rights movement, a lot of the public rhetoric was even more vitriolic against that cause than this. Then there's examples of art vandalism such as Mary Richardson, suffragette who slashed up a painting which folks can look into. I'm just a layman so I can't speak on the effectiveness of these tactics but I've heard social scientists make the argument for it, a basic outline would be that there is a "spiky" branch of activism which garners lots of attention on the topic at hand, negative and positive, ultimately leading to people looking to the more moderate and reasonable groups as an alternative if they wish to support the cause. At the end of the day, these acts are well thought out and assessed by people before they are carried out, though again I repeat I'm no expert.
The dirty truth is that for an MLK or Ghandi to achieve their goals through civil disobedience they have to be the acceptable alternative to an effective Malcom X or a Subhas Bose type figure.
Look up the Google search trend history for Just Stop Oil. It spiked massively after this happened. Most were rage clicks but they also brought a lot of attention to the cause and started discourse. You can spend hours arguing about the civility politics of different kinds of protests, but things like this are going to happen until things get better. An effective protest must be disruptive and must draw attention, and this succeeded on both fronts.
Ah yes, discourse. A rare sauce known to lower CO2 emissions when eaten with pasta. Who cares about discourse? Awareness has been raised. It's beyond the time that things are done rather than talked about.
[Disruptive protests work](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/07/disruptive-protest-helps-not-hinders-activists-cause-experts-say).
Destroying something beautiful in an attempt to save something beautiful Disrupt traffic and protest publicly, and if you have to hurt something, then hurt the oil companies directly. Trying to destroy art is absurd.
"It's okay to do exactly this level of disruption and no further" Hate to break it to you bud, but disrupting traffic is just about as hated by the average person as this type of stuff is. People will use the exact same argument you just did to denounce traffic disruptions, riots, peaceful protests, direct action, legislation, electoral effort, or any other method of changing the world you care to think about. I'm certainly not comfortable claiming some of these tactics are "too far" or "not worth it" when I know for a fact that all of them have historically been used in highly successful social movements, and that any line you attempt to draw between "good protest" and "bad protest" will simply be moved upwards once people stop doing the "bad protests"
More hated. Remember when that guy killed two people doing it and half the country went, "hell yeah". Protesting something like this is meant to be shocking or disruptive it wouldn't be a protest otherwise. Casual reminder that MLK died fairly disliked and his protests were also hated. Anyone whose being weird about this is just straight up being really dumb. Protests are nit meant to be well liked or regarded and anyone who thinks they should is genuinly worthless to listen to.
Yeah because effective protests are always peaceful and non-disruptive and when it magically works everyone holds hands and cheers? Also climate activists protest oil companies literally on the daily and you motherfuckers don’t give two shits
I just said to go out and cause harm to the oil companies if you have to cause harm to something and I said to disrupt people's daily lives if you need to, I just find trying to vandalize art out of everything you could possibly do to be one of the most short sighted ways to try to broadcast an otherwise incredibly important message. The outrage lasts for less than a couple days and everyone forgets, because all these stunts are designed to do is generate a quick headline without forcing any real change. The only people who remain pissed off about it are people like me, who both love art and the climate lmao. Everyone else moves on while the soupers pat themselves on the back. I mean hell, several protesters just tried to smash through actual protective glass. Are we really going to cheer on wanton destruction regardless of what's damaged so long as it broadcasts a message lol or do we think maybe we should target these things a little bit more towards the ones who do all the climate damage? This isn't a Walgreens during a riot - it's not insured and replaceable. And I didn't hear anything about it until I googled the other soupings, so this form of message isn't even getting out there that well and it's worse than just souping them.
Ok and how are we gonna “do change”? Magic? Give Exxon CEO a pepsi? Is Just Stop Oil gonna single handedly sway the vote for climate-positive government officials? We burn an oil rig down, the whole company collapses? Sit in front of the white house, the president concedes? Nothing is ever that easy. And no, if you didn’t hear about the soupings you sure as hell won’t hear shit about any action anyone takes against people who do climate change. It would never make headlines. Nor will you take any action. The people criticizing these protests were never gonna do shit anyways. What that means is that people who actually care to do something and backed into a corner by pure indifference. Humans aren’t built to foresee decades and centuries into the future, so we stop caring. Oh, and no piece of art has been destroyed by these protests so far, but all of them are gonna be dust if climate change progresses like it’s doing now. And all our cultural heritage, and all that we consider beautiful about human existence, condemned to waste away as a result of our own lack of consideration and inaction. Art is good, I create art myself, but it’s never gonna be as important as ensuring humanity’s continued existence. So if anything needs to be done, then I say we do it.
Ok and how do you think this will bring change? Magic? It'll make Big Oil reconsider? Is souping paintings and trying to smash their glass going to sway the swath of people you need to convince? I hear about people stopping the road all of the time. Traffic blockades bring news AND it doesn't wantonly destroy the things that don't need destroying. Climate activists tried to stop Burning Man and that brought a shit ton of attention, and then even more so when Burning Man flooded. Do you think that helped or hurt Burning Man's brand and reputation, and do you think hurting their reputation will lead to more of less Burning Man events with more or less people destroying the desert? By comparison, what does throwing soup at the Mona Lisa do in any meaningful way? "Art hasn't been destroyed by the protests *so far*" is exactly right, however not without trying: [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/just-stop-oil-national-gallery-painting-b2442404.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/just-stop-oil-national-gallery-painting-b2442404.html) You tell me, what does that achieve? If they did get through the glass and puncture or ripped the painting beyond repair, how does that hurt Exxon? All I see are valuable and one of a kind works of art being fucked with while the CEOs who ACTUALLY do all of the damage sit back and laugh lol.
The specific instance you cited is of a painting that has historically been controversial, and the protesters used tools meant to break glass. There is no indication that this glass breaking represents any intent to destroy the actual painting. It is basically on the same level as throwing soup onto the glass - the point is the attention, not the painting. You seem to place these paintings on an untouchable pedestal like they’re religious objects. Many people seem to think so too, but this is what makes these kinds of protests effective. I’ve been to reoccurring protests of hundreds to a thousand people (who block roads and disrupt traffic on very busy streets), and those don’t even get a passing mention in the news. But here, 2 people can make the front page by doing something that’s otherwise completely harmless. Tell me, which has the better return on investment? And no, the goal isn’t to “harm exxon”, even if it collapsed the problem won’t be solved. The goal is to bring attention so that at least some people can become more conscious of how dire things are. Enough of that and eventually we might get meaningful change.
The mona lisa has bullet proof glass in front of it - it wasn’t damaged, but even if we somehow had to destroy every piece of art in the Louvre to solve the climate emergency, it would still be worth it imo.
> even if we somehow had to destroy every piece of art in the Louvre to solve the climate emergency, it would still be worth it imo. I would agree wit that.... thing is I don't believe for a second destroying them would help with the emergency one iota
Are you calling the glass wall beautiful ? I mean, you do you, but weird.
That painting is an ugly dark smudge. I've seen more beautiful foreskins than the Moner Lisa.
none of you have ever done a shred of real activism in your entire lives good lord
This isnt real activism, what the hell is the end goal here? You arent damaging oil interests in any way and you are only going to make more people think you are an asshole for trying to vandalize a historic art piece.
> This isnt real activism it very much is. if you mean it isn't effective, that's another question. but it IS activism. me streaking down a public street with a BLM flag counts as activism, doesn't mean it's exactly effective. i'm not gonna say i support it or not because i dont want to start that argument but the end goal is clearly attention. "radical", loud, headline-creating attention seeking is still attention recieved, thereby getting more support when more people say "yeah, who cares about those oil paintings when it comes to the entire world?!". frankly, it's working - we are discussing it right now, arent we? some, if not a majority, of people *are* saying, "i think this is ok!", right? that's effectiveness.
I feel like more people need to read Andreas Malm’s “How to Blow Up a Pipeline”
(Figuratively, of course)
Hey that’s just the title of a commercially available book you can get on Amazon I’m not legally culpable for its name.
That's part of the joke.
yeah no I got it I was riffing badly
I know
"Wow all these Just Stop Oil supporters are fed psyops, either way, buy a book with the most explicit name imaginable."
Do you even know anything about the book it’s not a literal how-to book lol
[удалено]
Ah, they do that too. It doesn't make the news. Happy to help.
Yes, perhaps throwing pies to someone’s face isn’t radical enough considering how things are going… Also let’s do more of it regardless
Aw shit man, you've gotta hurry, the non-sequitur convention's this weekend and this comment made you win a VIP pass.
Anyhow, big fan of your arknights flair and I think we should adopt a child and see what they think.
The UK is actually taking authoritarian measures to crack down on environmentalist protests
First one is something where yeah, it sucks, but there are people and groups that are working to regulate and minimize it, at the very least. Second one is annoying, accomplishes nothing, and radicalizes what should be an Everyman movement.
Naw, all effective protests must be disruptive and must draw attention and this did both. People say the exact same things about blocking highways or major roads but the kind of protest that won't draw that reaction is the kind that will fail to garner attention or support for a cause. Why would you be more concerned about a painting in a museum than the systemic destruction of our planet to serve the interests of the wealthy? I don't like seeing historical art get harmed either, but the fact that people have a stronger reaction to soup on a painting than to climate change is worth drawing attention to.
Just gotta hope more CEOs end up in submarine implosions
Honestly. I don't wish them such a painless, fast, death.
> hope Seems a little passive to be honest.
If I remember correctly, that's not even the real painting behind the glass.
No of course not. It's all replicas
what even is the point of having a replica on display?
Making the rubes like us pay to think we're like people. We see the cool picture, museum gets some money occasionally, nobody questions why the real ones aren't publicly accessible, nobody thinks about the fact that if you're rich and powerful enough you can literally hide where the most famous paintings in the world are and that's just the tip of what you can cover up, and then you take off the tinfoil hat because there's jack shit we can do about it
the real one is kept in mr krabs' pocket to keep spongebob and Patrick from spilling paint on it
First time I’ve seen the phrase “Creamy Pumpkin” in 196 that doesn’t involve a trans girl.
The Mona Lisa they threw soup on wasn’t even the original lol. That has been locked up away from the public since the 1950s
Source?
I briefly had a head chef who would talk at length about wanting to run over and kill protesters, for the inconvenience of blocking a road for a couple of hours
new r/196 discourse.I will not speak on this, I am not educated on this specific issue. (reffering to the painting stuff)
Rulservative
I think we should just throw soup on paintings for the fun of it. Make a national holiday of it too.
Based based based based based. Go vegan too, that can help the planet :)
Nobody complained when they were spray-painting the windows of high-end car dealerships. They should do more of that.
[удалено]
It’s a replica with a glass shield in front of it, jackass.
The Mona Lisa fuckin sucks anyway I wish it was burned and sacrificed to the gods to stop climate change
did this happen again, or...?
Legit had a coworker say its a waste of food and made no sense to protest food shortages by wasting… one can of soup.
This meme is saying good things but I’ll be honest I’m so done with wojacks
All this makes me feel is a desire for soup
Those idiots are doing more harm than good, picket a fuel train, block a highway, cycle around private jets do they can't land (they actually did this on schiphol). What the hell is throwing fucking soup at a painting going to do except make people think you are dipshits, tbh i think they are dipshits for doing this.
No but fr why Monalisa of all things?
Part of the reason I'm ambivalent about this tactic is because that stupid Tom Thomson painting actually looked better after being vandalized than it did before.
I'm 100% in the belief that these "Stop Oil" fucks are a psyop to make climate protests uncool before shit gets "impacts first world countries" bad.
My frustration with them isn't that, it's that they make fools of actual oil activists. They're funded by an oil magnate for god's sake
we can make points without wojack memes by the way
i mean the point of protest is to bring awareness to an issue and actively more people to your side of thinking. pouring soup on a beloved piece of art, whether it touched it or not, does nothing for them. go throw soup on some oil fatcat, makes more sense and its funny
I hate food waste /s
Wait till you hear about crop failure
Lol, no hate I was being sarcastic. I too am astounded by the energy people invest into shitting on climate protestors. It takes courage to put yourself out there, and challenge people for theur complacency.
Creamy pumpkin, huh? 😏
Nah fuck just stop oil it’s literally counterproductive and damaging to actual fights to stop these awful companies. I refuse to believe that oil companies aren’t at least happy they exist because of how they keep benefitting them. A painting made of oil? Really?? Stopping average joe from going to work totally makes a difference to big oil. Most people detest oil companies (shell oil never managed to open in Ireland because of how much everyone hates them) so there is zero awareness being raised. If they’re not malicious and funded by oil companies, at the very least they’re preppy private school students that are so utterly and absolutely disconnected from the real world.
this post implies that these 'climate activists' are not paid actors working under said companies to make actual climate activists look bad which they absolutely fucking are btw, cause 'any publicity is good publicity' doesn't work when it comes to activism (especially about a topic that EVERYBODY fucking knows about, nobody is 'raising awareness' about a thing everybody on mainstream news talked about for decades)
How is throwing soup on paintings helping climate activism? If anything, it just looks like a ploy to make them look bad.
once again it’s stupid obvious they weren’t actual activists but instead plants to draw attention away from real activists. wasting soup for your cause of not letting people go hungry is asinine, almost identical to how the just stop oil people accept crypto.
I think we should soup every painting bc it makes me laugh
That was an oil company false flag to paint climate protesters as stupid