• @intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    35 months ago

    In another thread someone was arguing that stonehenge is valued. And it’s the implication that’s the message.

    He didn’t elaborate on the implication, but he said “What do you think people are gonna do next if this doesn’t work?”

    So maybe the strategy is just attack things people value until climate change is fixed

      • @Skullgrid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        35 months ago

        “What do you think people are gonna do next if this doesn’t work?”

        So maybe the strategy is just attack things people value until climate change is fixed

        Which is, frankly, overwhelmingly stupid.

        I’m pretty sure if they start killing oil executives and portfolio organisers things will start changing pretty sharpish.

      • @groet@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        25 months ago

        Activism can never ever ever ever ever achieve anything if it doest cause discomfort. A demonstration that doesn’t block roads or disrupt services is just invisible. And causing damage to a landmark is disruptive and discomforting.

        There is also the point that oil companies will just shoot you if you were to vandalise their office.

        • dream_weasel
          link
          fedilink
          -4
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Perfect! Go find a list of parents with one child and punch those babies. Then figure out which grandparents have the most grandkids and stomp their feet. Next set an orphanage on fire when everyone is playing outside. All these things are exactly as related to climate change as putting beans on art or paint on Stonehenge.

          Of course you are exactly right: this is why all the great protests you hear about for civil rights, women’s rights, and reproductive rights all started by going where it was safe and fucking up some art and history.

          You can have a disruptive impact and not be a totally entitled piece of shit.