No denying the data.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I really don't get that. Why should they be punished severely just for vandalizing an expensive option? Art can be bought, no matter how expensive or valuable or good. In a world in which art can be bought and freely destroyed, making a fuzz about this lacks integrity.
What are you even talking about? This reads like absurd nonsense.
I am saying that the notion that you should make an example out of people for accidently putting a little smudge on a painting is absurd for many different reasons that i have outlined.
I will stress that your post is mostly nonsensical self serving gibberish. Art being publicly or private owned has exactly zero relevance to the issue at hand. If it belonged to a rich asshole and it got ruined then they should be treated as people who caused extensive damage to private property. Because, you know, common sense. This painting however was in the UK's national gallery. Whose collection they hold for the British government, as in, it's public. It' belongs to taxpayers (except the parts of their collection which was stolen of course). These kids had zero right to put any amount of risk to these and the only silver lining here is that they didn't cause damage to the painting.
FIrst of all, there was zero risk for the painting. They knew it was behind glas, lets not act like it was any other way.
There's literally no situation where throwing anything at the art in museums, protected or otherwise, is acceptable. Stupid kids doing this over climate change has exactly zero relevance to that.
But what is the reasoning behind that claim? I find throwing tomato sauce at plexiglas to get media attention with the aim of fighting climate change very acceptable and I did back up that protest forms like that are useful and working.
How many people read about the incident or watched the video compared to those who watched this video?
People keep repeating that, but i doubt that is true. What they did is not any more or less justified than blocking general traffic (which seemed to be effective).
Traffic exists because of fossil fuels, so yeah you can very easily say demonstrations involving that are more justified, more pointed, and would probably be more effective.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
--- Double Post Merged, ---
But is that connection, when it comes to just the general traffic, really bigger than the thematic connection to "we lose something unique and precious every day" and setting that protest in a museum? Just because traffic uses fossil fuels does not mean that blocking traffic has a very direct connection to the cause of the activists. A direct connection would be if they occupy a ministry or at least a company building to push through their demands. Their demand is not "traffic needs to stop" or that people instantly stop using cars. JSO has no problem with people, in the current time, driving to work. They demand that politicians take action for a green turn and for that demand, they want the general public to feel a bigger sense of urgency, which is why they want to use disruptions of public life of all kinds to instill that sense of urgency. Their actions are always indirect.
I hope he didn't lose his job or go back to prison
Aww come on.
Yes, in recent times, we saw that a lot from the right.
Oh, prevent how? And with which aim? You are contradicting yourself here. On the one hand, you (falsely) claim the Greens are a neonconservative party, on the other, you say actual radical action is wrong. That only leaves doing nothing and ranting about everybody else as the one true activism.
www.politico.com