You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
0 points
*

Man, I’ve studied history and I still agree with all that they’re doing and even wish they had done permanent damage to all the things these protestors have sprayed. The hypocrisy is incredible.

It’s just like when Notre-Dame burned, billions started coming in while people in Paris are homeless or must choose between eating or paying rent.

These things are objects, living beings are dying due to our inaction and people would rather spend money to admire a fucking painting than think about it? That’s disgusting.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

So your argument is that because humans suck and don’t want to help their fellow humans, it’s okay to destroy art and relics?

Really?

Why is it so hard for people these days to understand that two wrongs don’t make a right, and two sides can be wrong or do bad?

Letting people rot in the streets is bad. That is not hard to understand.

Destroying relics and ruins just to call attention is bad too. Why is this so hard to understand?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

But they (probably) didn’t do permanent damage to this or the painting, just enough to cause outrage.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah, the kind of outrage that will push even more people to vote for the kind of politicians that will stop this… The same kind of politicians that also claim that climate change is a hoax.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

My point is that we waste so much resources on preserving that stuff while people are fucking dying, sometimes just a few blocks away from where these art pieces are kept.

They’re objects that have no utility in keeping the world habitable and right now you’ve got governments and private interests more busy spending billions preserving them instead of preserving life on this planet.

You go and tell someone from Samoa that you think it’s more important for us to be spending billions preserving Notre-Dame because people would rather release tons of CO2 by taking a plane to travel across the ocean to visit a church no one cared about a two hundreds years ago instead of spending that money for reforestation efforts in France in order to capture CO2 and reduce global warming that will lead to their island disappearing in the ocean.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I think it’s the wrong argument.

You don’t need to get rid of world heritage to save the world, it would be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

What we need is politicians who a) actually understand science and b) care enough to push through environmental protection plans that will stop CO2 output and c) the biggest problem, voters that have a and b too.

What we got is loads of career opportunists that happily lie their ass off to become popular, happily dismantle any environmental protections to become popular and they’re voted for by stupid ignorant voters that happily lao up all the crap they’re being fed. World wide governments are making swings to the right, world wide, environmental protections aren’t increased, they’re dismantled.

Do you really believe that destroying art will change any of this for the better?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

But they aren’t destroying them, are they? The stones have been standing in the rain and snow for 3,000 years. Some powder paint is just going to wash off the next time it snows. It’s not like they’ve taken a jackhammer to the Heel Stone.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah but you know very well that this is more than “well the stones are fine!”

This is not the first time they try to destroy art or historical sites and maybe this time it’s “not too bad” but in others, painting were damaged.

The point is just that this is NOT helping. This will piss people off and push them to vote for politicians that will stop these assholes. Those politicians with the tough on crime stance are the same that think climate change is a hoax.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

They haven’t damaged anything. They just bait the news into writing publicity for the cause and it works because people believing “they damage an artifact” generates clicks.

People have publicly killed themselves to to make people pay attention to the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced.

Such is unaffective because news doesn’t cover it.

The chemicals in our rain from industrial waste that will wash these stones clean, do way more damage. But you don’t know that because not enough people talk about it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Would agree if this wasn’t the first time, and if it wasn’t that actual art has been damaged to get attention.

Destruction of art or historical sites will NOT save the world. It’ll piss people off and push them to vote for right wing politicians that will dismantle even more environmental protections

permalink
report
parent
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 4.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 2.6K

    Posts

  • 8.9K

    Comments

Community moderators