However it gets clicks and then people talk about the climate crisis.
So it generates ad revenue for the media, helps sell whatever useless shit the ads are about, eats energy serving the content, and ‘gets people talking’ about something people are already constantly talking about. Sounds like a big win for the planet!
That doesn’t define every climate movement though, and anyone suggesting it does is acting in bad faith and undermining the entire concept of nonviolent civil disobedience. It’s dumb, sure, kids do lots of dumb stuff but I wouldn’t even call it counterproductive. It sure got people talking and raised awareness, and now the groups tactics have evolved. Anyone that magically ignores the climate catastrophe because someone threw soup at the bulletproof glass covering the Mona Lisa wasn’t actually going to do anything to further the cause anyway. Why not focus your energy on something more productive than shitting on some trivial event that happened awhile back?
It sure got people talking and raised awareness, and now the groups tactics have evolved.
One would hope their tactics evolved, the awareness of it being incredibly stupid is what people were talking about.
Public demonstrations are not new. Lessons learned are abundant. Changes in technology are new and that’s what could be useful but making a spectacle and preventing people from going home is not the best avenue, so to speak.
The post is about an upcoming movement that’s vague on specifics, other than they are focusing on Citibank and trying to limit disruption for regulars. It hasn’t even happened yet, but you and others here are already shitting on it. That’s the issue I have with the criticisms here.
Oh, sorry, no didn’t mean to shit on a specific thing, just saying there’s good ways to do it and bad ways to do it and some of the sort-of recent ones were obviously bad.
Throwing soup at paintings is the dumbest, most counter-productive way possible.
I’ll shit on that all day long.
Paintings in museums have glass in front of them. They are not damaged by this. However it gets clicks and then people talk about the climate crisis.
Yeah, great.
The climate crisis could have been represented better. And attacking museums is just low. Like they need that.
So it generates ad revenue for the media, helps sell whatever useless shit the ads are about, eats energy serving the content, and ‘gets people talking’ about something people are already constantly talking about. Sounds like a big win for the planet!
That doesn’t define every climate movement though, and anyone suggesting it does is acting in bad faith and undermining the entire concept of nonviolent civil disobedience. It’s dumb, sure, kids do lots of dumb stuff but I wouldn’t even call it counterproductive. It sure got people talking and raised awareness, and now the groups tactics have evolved. Anyone that magically ignores the climate catastrophe because someone threw soup at the bulletproof glass covering the Mona Lisa wasn’t actually going to do anything to further the cause anyway. Why not focus your energy on something more productive than shitting on some trivial event that happened awhile back?
One would hope their tactics evolved, the awareness of it being incredibly stupid is what people were talking about.
Public demonstrations are not new. Lessons learned are abundant. Changes in technology are new and that’s what could be useful but making a spectacle and preventing people from going home is not the best avenue, so to speak.
The post is about an upcoming movement that’s vague on specifics, other than they are focusing on Citibank and trying to limit disruption for regulars. It hasn’t even happened yet, but you and others here are already shitting on it. That’s the issue I have with the criticisms here.
Oh, sorry, no didn’t mean to shit on a specific thing, just saying there’s good ways to do it and bad ways to do it and some of the sort-of recent ones were obviously bad.
Right ? I fucking love soup.