• Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    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?

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        And that’s an issue, they need to cause damage to wake people up. Revolutions don’t happen by painting graffitis that are covered the next day, they happen through acts that put an end to the status quo. Had the Mona Lisa been ruined we would still talk about it today.

        What’s happening in the world now is much worse than what lead to the French or American Revolution, but people are more bothered by the fact that people used fake paint on Stonehenge than the fact that close to a thousand have died in Saudi Arabia JUST TODAY because of climate change.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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?

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          We don’t need to, but at some point if no one reacts don’t be surprised if some people start figuring out that the only way you’ll get people angry is by showing to the world how hypocritical people are.

    • mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          You’ve shifted from “destroyed” to “damaged”, I notice. The varnish of The Hay Wain was damaged, but the painting was not. The frames of various other paintings were damaged. The glass of The Rokeby Venus was damaged. Nothing compared to what Mary Richardson did in 1914.

          It is literally Just Stop Oil’s point that people will start wringing their handkerchiefs at these actions but they are doing nothing about the climate emergency which threatens all our lives. You think it will make a difference if these people vote for different parties? The current parties are already doing worse than nothing - Sunak is opening up new oil and gas fields.

          It is not climate protesters’ responsibility to persuade people to save the planet that we all live on. It is up to everybody, and too many people are not doing their share. Just Stop Oil have a right to be angry. We should all be angry.

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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