No matter what the form of protest, you will think it’s tone-deaf because you have been trained to.
MMmmmmmmmmm No. It’s actually tone-deaf. And assholish. And idiotic. And stupid. And I hate them Sam I Am.
Seriously, they are more damaging to actual protest movements than Big Oil. I’m seconding the astroturfing theory. Their methods are not just ridiculous, they’re offensive on multiple levels, and here’s the part where I disagree with my younger more smartical friends: IT DOES NOT HELP IN ANY WAY. “Oh but it gets the message out there!” And what message would that be? If the message is “stupid idiots deface art or humanity for shiggles” then sure, I’d agree. Otherwise it’s just more headwinds to fight against, a self-own for - well, we don’t really know why other than they think it’s great to be filming themselves.
The message is that people care more about non-damaging vandalism to famous objects than they do about climate change which will cause irreparable damage to many of these same objects, be it through hazardous weather, rising seas, or global conflict.
Well the message is wrong. People care about both. These clods think vandalizing museums is some kind of magical incantation to energize the anti-big-oil . . . what, legislation? Consumer habits?
MMmmmmmmmmm No. It’s actually tone-deaf. And assholish. And idiotic. And stupid. And I hate them Sam I Am.
Seriously, they are more damaging to actual protest movements than Big Oil. I’m seconding the astroturfing theory. Their methods are not just ridiculous, they’re offensive on multiple levels, and here’s the part where I disagree with my younger more smartical friends: IT DOES NOT HELP IN ANY WAY. “Oh but it gets the message out there!” And what message would that be? If the message is “stupid idiots deface art or humanity for shiggles” then sure, I’d agree. Otherwise it’s just more headwinds to fight against, a self-own for - well, we don’t really know why other than they think it’s great to be filming themselves.
The message is “we are heading towards complete climate collapse and The Powers That Be are acting like things are fine”.
The message is that people care more about non-damaging vandalism to famous objects than they do about climate change which will cause irreparable damage to many of these same objects, be it through hazardous weather, rising seas, or global conflict.
Not exactly a great message in terms of optics. Usually a bad idea to insult your audience
Well the message is wrong. People care about both. These clods think vandalizing museums is some kind of magical incantation to energize the anti-big-oil . . . what, legislation? Consumer habits?
How did they come to such a conclusion anyway?