335
Just Stop Oil activists throw soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers after fellow protesters jailed
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
335 points (92.4% liked)
World News
39032 readers
2337 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just Stop Oil has to be the most destructive and idiotic activist group I've ever heard of (besides Greenpeace and their anti-nuclear agenda). They make activism as a whole look bad with their pointless stunts.
What does Vincent van Gogh have to do with the current state of the petrol industry? What does any classical artist have to do with the current state of the petrol industry? Why go out of one's way to try and ruin something that isn't even remotely related to the subject? They're only making themselves look like a bad joke.
Doesnt help they're total assholes either; a few years ago they blocked a motorway in England in protest. Fair enough. But there was a family who's baby had to be rushed to the nearest hospital, and they weren't allowed to pass! Seriously, fuck them.
They literally address this: "There is no art on a dead planet." If all humans are dead, art means nothing. Just stop using oil.
Pearl clutching aside, the art was protected by a plexiglass barrier and did no permanent harm.
An incredibly stupid sentiment.
What's stupid about protesting while causing zero harm?
The stupid part is y'all falling for this clickbait headline.
And yet, you talk about Just Stop Oil, so it does work.
It's not a productive discourse though. They draw the ire of everyone doing something so senseless, and that in turn causes damage to the progress of their cause because people don't want to support them.
An anecdotal example is that I agree with some of their sentiments but I will never support them because they do stupid ineffectual nonsense like this. Take your protests to the places that control these issues. Not a fucking art gallery.
This the exact same sentiment as people had in segregated US had towards activists.
Bringing attention and drawing ire are both sides of the same coin. Your sentence points of the hypocrisy:
They have been doing that for decades. And it didn't do anything, did it? The fact that you tell them to do this points out how ineffective it was because you didn't even know they were.
This same rhetoric you're saying existed during many protests, from the suffragettes to the civil rights, and it's always the same response. "It's ineffective." "It's bothering people." "Do it elsewhere." "You're making the cause worse." It gets pretty repetitive.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm absolutely all for bothering people because it's needed for change. But there are more and less effective ways to do that. Trashing art thatcis unrelated really seems less effective. Effective to a point, but less effective overall. You mentioned there have been protests at the appropriate places, and I admit I only know a handful. Do you have examples where people have damaged say, a corrupt politicians car? Or perhaps blocked the street where a lobbyist lives? Or maybe thrown red paint or buckets of organ meat and offal on the steps of the supreme court and picketed about the damages they've caused to womens rights?
If they have been doing outlandish things to the politicians and places of government, then I'm sorry. I haven't noticed and I will agree it's come time to demonstrate elsewhere. I will add that if that's truly the case, I wish they'd say so when doing these stunts.
Yeah, so Just Stop Oil grabbed attention with a stupid act. What's everyone talking about? The stupid act.
The name is the message. Just Stop Oil. And it does work.
Right, because we're all talking about how greatly effective they are.
Does it though? All I've gotten out of it is fuck Just Stop Oil
It does. There's actually been a fair amount of change from it, and pointing out the incredibly harsh punishments targetted at Just Stop Oil kinda shows that. If it didn't accomplish anything, why lock up activists for years for an act that was solved by cleaning the plexiglass?
Evidence suggests that disruptive protests actually help, rather than hinder organisations like JSO:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/07/disruptive-protest-helps-not-hinders-activists-cause-experts-say
https://theconversation.com/climate-change-radical-activists-benefit-social-movements-history-shows-why-181977
https://theconversation.com/radical-environmentalists-are-fighting-climate-change-so-why-are-they-persecuted-107211
It's all about raising awareness and facilitating discussions.
Meanwhile petrol companies are doing everything they can to smother protests: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/26/anti-protest-laws-fossil-fuel-lobby
Consider who gains the most from perpetuating the idea that JSO are the bad guys...
Nicely cherry-picked.
Lucky JSO are about the former, not the latter.
If they have such high public support why doesn't the public vote accordingly?
Because we don't vote on the policies themselves really, we vote on the people who are supposed to vote on the policies in our interests, but the side that claims to be against climate change keeps perpetuating it and we keep allowing them to and reelecting them because learning another guy's name is hard and they have to have a D in front of their name or else they're useless, even though those with Ds in front of their name are also useless.
This is terminal murica-brain. My condolences.
The majority of people see climate action as a priority:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/global-surveys-show-peoples-growing-concern-about-climate-change
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/09/14/in-response-to-climate-change-citizens-in-advanced-economies-are-willing-to-alter-how-they-live-and-work/#:~:text=A%20median%20of%2080%25%20across,or%20no%20changes%20at%20all
https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/report/2023/consumers-care-about-sustainability-and-back-it-up-with-their-wallets/
The reason not everyone is voting accordingly is because political motivation is complex. There's more things pressing for people's attention like being able to feed, cloth and home themselves. That's why addressing societal issues like poverty, inequality etc are part of addressing climate change. We need to free up people's bandwidth to allow them to concentrate on issues like the climate.
No shit people are for fighting climate change in the abstract. But we're not living in an abstract world, we are living in an actual one. One, where needs and desires compete. And consistently, other desires take priority over fighting climate change. There obviously isn't as much support for actually combating climate change in the real world, with real consequences for real humans as you people assume.
Actually people are voting for climate action, enough to potentially have swung results in America:
And we see the same in Europe:
And wider:
But as those same articles highlight voting for climate action is a complex topic. Our economic system often makes the worst option the cheapest and easiest, and green policies, done badly, can sometimes end up penalising those who can least afford it which is why climate change is also an inequalities issue:
These are all things which can only be addressed at a governmental level. People are voting in parties because of their Green credentials but it's down to the incumbent to act on those promises once elected. Unfortunately organisations such as oil companies have a lot of lobbying power which can dull or redirect green policy. It's up to the public to ensure that this doesn't happen by making sure climate change remains in the spotlight, thus making it hard for the government to ignore. Which is what groups like JSO are doing, and why the petrochemical companies are so determine to undermine them.
You are drawing sweeping conclusions from very limited evidence. None of this shows a large part of the population voting for radical climate action, a few more people voting a little bit more centre left doesn't mean much. It's particularly telling that you're trying to use the last EU election as evidence. Are you not aware that there was a right-ward shift in the European Parliament? The Greens in particular lost a lot. The EU continuing its course is far more indicative of technocratic governance over a democratic mandate.
You are deliberately obfuscating, to manufacture the appearance of support where there is too little. The issue is not that there is no climate action, the issue is that there is not enough of it. People, at least broadly, get the climate action that they vote for. Until climate swings elections in the way that the economy or migration does, the message to politicians will continue to be that people have other priorities.
You'd have to live under a rock to not be aware of climate change. If you do live under a rock, you wouldn't hear about some dumbasses throwing soup in an art gallery.
If you know about climate change, but don't care about climate change, a stupid act like this is not going to change their mind. Nothing will.
You'd have to live under a rock to think hegemony is doing anything about climate change apart from profiting,
High profile protests like this keep the matter of climate change in the spotlight. They prevent it being brushed under the rug by other events and ensure it remains on the political radar. Maybe you're right in that if you don't care about climate change JSO are unlikely to change your mind, but if they help to convert even a handful of people, or at least encourage conversations on the topic that they weren't having before, that's a win.
Climate change is a subject that has never left the spotlight. It's more in the spotlight than ever, no thanks to Just Stop Oil. These guys are contributing absolutely nothing.
I don't agree with this but I think I can see the point.
I think it shows how upset people get when they think something like the painting is being destroyed, but do not connect that to the planet being destroyed by the people they protest.
Wreck a van Gogh goto jail, wreck the planet profit.
There is no connection. That's why it's stupid.
Also totally unconnected: Oil barons trading these works of art at free ports.
Big oil thanks you for spreading their propaganda for free.
That is the most delusional take.
So delusional it's actually the reality of the situation.
Tell me, how many oil companies have stopped doing oil since these started throwing soup?
Pretty sure "and others" is doing a lot of work here.
And since we're dropping the civil language; you can fuck right off, you art defiler worshipping cunt. Maybe there's a warm spot in the jail cell next to these idiots.
Well, we're talking about it. I also understand (which doesn't mean I support) their message without even looking it up. I'm glad someone else clarified it (cf “There is no art on a dead planet.”) proving that it's really not that hard.
Who cares about the most beautiful piece of art ever if there is nobody left to enjoy it because we are literally burning up the only livable ecosystem we know?
We're talking about their pointless stunt, not about climate change. They're adding absolutely nothing.
Just like art, it is up to the viewer to decide what conversation they want to have. Neither an artist or a protestor can force viewers to have a singular interpretation.
And destroying that art so that if we do end up fixing it and living we still can't have it isn't a good look, imo.
It was behind glass. A janitor had to take some Windex to it. The horror!
Ah well that's good, at least they didn't destroy anything then.
They never do. It's always these outrageous headlines, but they never actually harm anything.
"Just Stop Oil HORRIFICALLY DEFACES STONEHENGE!"
No, actually they put gentle water washable biodegradable paint on it. It disappeared after the first light mist.
Heard an interview a while ago with a founder of Just Stop Oil who clearly said he doesn't care whether they even stop climate change (around 40:00-43:00).
It's famous, so attacking it gets attention.
Idiotic is when people still think that the actual art was harmed at all. There have been like dozens of these protests and people still spout this nonsense.