many things exist outside the bounds of their limited imaginations.
4 Likes
True. But a prankster would say annoy the world to get results. Change how the debate is done.This sure worked.
2 Likes
Down that road lies the dramaturgy of real terrorism. (“Wouldn’t it be awesome if we could kill hundred of people simultaneously, as statement?”) To be sure, it’s a long way off, and there many opportunities to get off, but at this point I’m thinking of them as idiots, rather than as visionaries.
3 Likes
Not sure which side you’re over-dramatizing. The act of Business (which DOES kill) or Activism?
Show me one act of activism that has intentionally killed people as a statement. I would appreciate an example. Once someone becomes radicalized, sure, they go off the deep end. But that’s often because they lose their sense of humor. Keep humor going and you can win.
Mel Brooks has a good observation: Don’t try debating power because that’s all they do, is provide authority and facts. You’ll lose every time. Fart on them instead. See what people notice.
2 Likes
That’s not much of a guarantor. Far right activists already perform a simulacrum of humor.
I dunno-- seems that viewpoint neutral standards can offer no particular wisdom here.
The economist fretted about this before.
What if climate activists turn to terrorism? (4 Jul 2020)
1 Like
There is no art on a dead planet. Don’t you people get that?
3 Likes
tbf that's exactly the point they're making - we're shocked at the idea of art being destroyed but the destruction of the ecosystem and ongoing mass human death is normal?
— Cameron Scary (@CWScally) October 14, 2022
2 Likes
If we get rid of all art, we can better focus on survival.
I enjoyed looking at that PDF. Thanks for that. Some of the memes referenced there are pretty funny and juvenile. I don’t suggest the radicalized right isn’t allowed to laugh at things. Nor am I surprised at the references included at what they laugh at. But that attempt at humor is always aesthetically like asking a football player to perform ballet. It’s not the same thing. But okay, yeah, they have jokes.
The humor mentioned in that is nothing new, just the same as racist imagery used for centuries. But it was a nice response, thanks.
I found value in reading through that, and wouldn’t have seen without you providing it in this discussion.
However:
So what? HA! I seriously want the Economist’s take on radical thinking? ROTFLMAO.
That’s like Good Housekeeping on How to Hoard.
At least recommend a good book that likely has influenced people.
This is weaponized fiction and a ton of fun:
Now that is funny! Soup for everyone! Grab some glue!
2 Likes
a close parallel
2 Likes
Can’t help thinking 3d printer. Not proud.
Bread and roses.
Mere survival is not enough for humans. Never has been. How do we know so much about prehistorical humans? Cave paintings are a big part of the reason. Art is an essential part of our lives.
8 Likes
2 Likes
3 Likes
dangerous though, they might be confused with anticarnivorists.
9 Likes
What part of the “Just Stop Oil” t-shirts wasn’t clear?
But of course! The true message hidden in plain sight behind a nonsensical act. Brilliant!
1 Like
Why not be shocked by both?
We are less shocked by the idea of the pretence of art being destroyed, than we are shocked by the pretence of oil companies greenwashing. Performative nonsense.
1 Like
Whilst that statement is of course deeply profound, I would suggest it is true for all of us.
Perhaps you might start a list of things you think protesters should try first which you believe their “limited imaginations” haven’t already thought of and then you could check to see whether that has in fact already been tried somewhere and whether oil extraction was even slowed for a milisecond as a result?
I can guarantee that each time anyone has undertaken any form of protest for any reason, there have been a whole bunch of people looking at it and saying “This is an inappropriate way to protest. We agree with the goal - of course - but this is counterproductive.”
And for those claiming that it’s wrongheaded because people who destroy the planet don’t care about art, they should bear in mind that art and Van Gogh’s works in particular are one of the many ways oil companies have chosen to try to cover-up/distract from their misdeeds.
To support your view that they could have come up with a more imaginative protest, this is not the first time the National Gallery and Van Gogh’s paintings have been the subject of protest:
As it happens the National Gallery chose not to renew its sponsorship deal with Shell.
2 Likes
