• RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    That’s the whole point. The CEOs dont care for their property either, there’s no point of vandalizing anything of theirs and ending up with lawsuits.

    This message wasn’t to CEOs, it was to you.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 days ago

      Then they send their message to the informed but poor and powerless.

      I disagree, though, that the rich don’t care about their toys. They may be able to afford to replace them, but it’s not like they go out and buy a yacht every day. And activists vandalizing public works of art or history can and do still face legal action from the governments that oversee or maintain them.

      Ultimately, the rich responsible for facilitating and encouraging climate change aren’t going to feel any compunction to change if you never even punch in their direction.

      • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        It’s called raising awareness in society. This kind of coverage costs millions of dollars, and it only happened because they involved something visible we all care for in a way.

        • Telorand@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 days ago

          I guess, but who hasn’t heard of climate change at this point?

          The conversation has to go beyond that, and their desire to raise awareness accompanied by acts like this only demonstrates their conviction, not the truth of our impending doom. They have to reach the people who still don’t think it’s real, and what does painting a historical monument have to do with climate change?

          The plot they want people to pick up gets lost and the message is out of their control if the act isn’t self-evident with regard to their purpose.

          • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            I can go through the dictionary all day. That’s called activism my dude, and it was an excellent way to being attention to a particular issue they are campaigning for.

            The act is self-evident in regards to their purpose lmao. They “painted” the environment (polluted it) in a way we could all relate to, in a effort raise awareness on other things happening in the environment that aren’t as visible.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 days ago

        They’re sending the message to people who are ready to take a plane to travel thousands of km to go check a bunch of rocks. They’re sending the message to people who vote. They’re sending the message to people that use their car to get stuck in traffic every morning instead of using public transport.