• tristan@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    4 months ago

    Going after a painting that’s behind glass is VERY different to going after the stone henge that has no protective layer, and most importantly of all, has nothing to do with the target of their cause

    saying it destroyed the stone henge is a major exaggeration, saying it did no damage is also just as wrong. The English heritage society emphasised that it was only no VISIBLE damage left, however they also said it did cause damage.

    It’s just like how you can’t touch walls in caves because any change in the oils and stuff in our skins can cause long term damage even though there’s no immediate visible damage

    • Krono@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      How do you think those rocks will fare when the average temperature rises a few degrees?

      Do you think the big stones will avoid damage while humans are fighting wars over water?

      Are those precious rocks going to be ok when countries near the equator become uninhabitable, and the UK has to violently defend its borders from millions of climate refugees?

      Do you think it can still be considered a cultural heritage site after all the humans are dead?

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It’s going to be too cold to visit once the Gulf Stream stalls from reduced ocean salinity, and Britain’s climate is more like northern Canada or Alaska.

      • tristan@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        4 months ago

        I never once said I disagree with their message, but doesn’t mean I need to agree with their methods

        If their message is that oil is bad and that government should be doing more, they should be targeting oil companies, lobbyists, government officials, companies that have excess waste and chemical use (coke im looking at you)… Not heritage listed stuff that’s mostly maintained by volunteers

          • tristan@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            21
            ·
            4 months ago

            If their message was anti whaling and they cut down trees as well as sabotaged boats, would you be “well they attack boats too so that’s fine”?

        • Krono@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          If you actually agreed with their message, then I don’t think you would take the time to whinge about the safety of the precious rocks.

          • tristan@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            4 months ago

            No, because I don’t agree with their methods… Just like any extremist group might have a good message but doesn’t mean I agree with them bombing oil pipelines or kidnapping people

            Attacking rocks does nothing to progress their cause… Attacking things in the environment doesn’t even line up with their cause of wanting to protect the environment

            As long as they stick to actually attacking the companies and groups that actually are the cause of the problems, I would support their methods and as a result, them as a group

            • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              While I haven’t heard a reasoning from any of these groups why they perform provocative acts in galleries and on historical sites, I think there are reasons:

              1. A lot of art galleries, opera houses, and other institutions of high culture are supported by the super-rich. As such many of these institutions are outlets of fossil-fuel money.

              2. High culture is essentially a distraction for those with education and intellect. So going to places of high culture means you tend to reach (and, granted, annoy) the kinds of people who have enough free mental bandwidth to understand and enough clout to actually influence decisions.