Asklemmy

44149 readers

1465 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What do you think of environmental protest groups? (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 months ago by Tekkip20@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

55 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Examples include Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion here in the UK.

Personally, I think some charities are groups are genuine in their outburst wanting large firms to stop strangling the natural beauty for profit, however for me there is a red line that can be crossed.

Blocking roads preventing medical care, people going to work, interview and possibly a nice vacation away. This doesn't really help but make the public look at your group in a bad light.

The same can also be said when attempting to destroy priceless art for a cheap publicity stunt knowing it'll get clicks on social media.

TLDR - I think some groups are genuinely good whilst others are just shouting in a speakerphone, pissing everyone else off.

What do YOU think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

No art was damaged because the protective meassure in place to protect against vandalism, worked. It's still vandalism.

You basically just went from "This didn't happen" to "It's not vandalism" to "It shouldn't be considered vandalism". I don't think I'm the one that should consider changing their opinion here.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

Your original statement was

Those that just vandalize random art or monuments that have nothing to do with climate change can fuck right off.

From the links you supplied, in two of the three cases (Stonehenge and Flowers) no damage was done. In the case of Stonehenge, the protestors chose a marker that wouldn't damage the monument. For Flowers, I'd assume they knew about the glass. But that's me giving them credit.

For the third (Warhol's soup), damage was done but remediated.

The protestors are being unfairly accused of fucking up art without justification. Others have used that to dismiss the protests and the cause, which is bullshit.

The protestors have a good cause, they're getting people to (at least) talk about climate change, and they're taking the punishment for their actions.

[–] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It has been clear for decades that governments should act quickly, wisely and decisively, but they simply do not, preferring to look for other issues. The kids from Just Stop Oil poured soup on glass and sprayed chalk on stones to draw attention to the huge emergency that we collectively ignore. They wanted to attract attention, and they succeeded. But their fellow human beings don't want to think about the impending climate collapse, let alone take action and join an active protest. That would require leaving the comfort zone. So they get upset anonymously on the internet about the form of protest and act as if art vandalism was being practiced here.
Cognitive dissonance is when your convictions do not match your actions. You solve it by changing either your actions or your beliefs.