this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
336 points (92.6% liked)

World News

38764 readers
2917 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Three individuals targeted National Gallery paintings an hour after Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland were jailed for similar attack in 2022

Climate activists have thrown tomato soup over two Sunflowers paintings by Vincent van Gogh, just an hour after two others were jailed for a similar protest action in 2022.

Three supporters of Just Stop Oil walked into the National Gallery in London, where an exhibition of Van Gogh’s collected works is on display, at 2.30pm on Friday afternoon, and threw Heinz soup over Sunflowers 1889 and Sunflowers 1888.

The latter was the same work targeted by Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland in 2022. That pair are now among 25 supporters of Just Stop Oil in jail for climate protests.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Imagine if these activists spent more time going after companies benefiting from fossil fuel production rather than throwing soup in museums...

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 58 points 1 week ago (13 children)

They've done that too, and have encountered media blackouts.

As nice as it would be if they could simply fix the climate problem with the disruption a handful of protests cause, they can't, and need to draw public attention to the problem.

These demonstrations open up the conversation in threads like this - you agree there's a problem, you agree these protests don't fix the problem, so let's talk about what will.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I feel like we’re kind of entering an era where direct action and ecology-motivated terrorism are going to start becoming a thing. And I’m honestly not sure that would be a bad thing.

[–] BrightCandle@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Peaceful protests have not worked, disruptive protests have been widely villified and the protestors jailed for very long sentences. If you are facing 2-3 years for holding up a banner or throwing some paint seems like criminal damage of a fossil fuel facility isn't likely to net more years. As many have said in the past governments ignore peaceful protests at their peril, because once its clear that doesn't work they become not peaceful.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If everything is illegal, nothing is illegal.

If you’re gonna get thrown in jail if you’re caught regardless, why not go for broke?

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

To fight another day. If every passionate soul bound themselves to another rather then fizzling out or going up flames then we could become many.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Assuming there's no collateral damage to speak of, I'd argue it would be an act of self-defence for the benefit of all of us. In principle, I'd struggle to find reason to be upset by it.

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There will be collateral damage. There always is. The idea there wouldn't be collateral damage is already setting the bar higher than is feasible.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Seems to me that it would be pretty difficult to encounter a media blackout to do this sort of thing at, for example, global climate summits, oil company shareholder meetings, etc.

But I'm not seeing much soup being thrown there.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 37 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In Germany, protestors repeatedly shut oil pipelines off and locked themselves to the valves to prevent their reopening, blocking oil flow for several hours every time. I consume a lot of news, both mainstream and in my leftist bubble. That story barely registered anywhere.

The exact same protestors threw mashed potatoes at a Van Gogh. They were the main headline for over a week.

Hell, some guy set himself on fire a few years ago and it was in the news for half a day.

The media blackout is real, but it's not a huge conspiracy. It's just that the media reports on what gets them clicks, and nothing generates clicks like outrage. That's why so much reporting also conveniently forgets to mention that the paintings are protected by plexiglass and nothing ever got damaged. But all the controversy gets people talking, and some people will inevitably question what drives people to do something like that. That is the real objective. If they wanted to be popular, they'd to greenwashed recycling videos on YouTube instead, or whatever else is hip with the neoliberal peddlers of personal responsibility at the moment.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And how will this get corporations to stop drilling for and selling and taking advantage of fossil fuels? How do you get from throwing soup to that?

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (6 children)

You stop the problem from being buried under the fact that everyone is struggling to get by, or distracted by whatever the fuck the likes of the Kardashians are up to. You bring it to the forefront and prompt conversations like these - conversations where someone might realise that to stay the course on this one is to roll down the road to the apocalypse, and maybe they'd like to do something about that.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But no one is realizing anything but these idiots throwing soup belong in jail

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (13 children)

By 'media blackout' they mean 'it was a blip on the radar like this is, but this is NOW and thus relevant and important'

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

let’s talk about what will.

Stop throwing soup.

We’re at the point where idiots throwing soup are called sing more environmental damage than backwoods yahoos rolling coal. Shall we protest soup abuse? Because that’s more likely to help the environment

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Right? Go throw soup at Darren Woods or one of the oil execs, not at a painting

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Remember when famous assholes used to get pies in the face? What happened to that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tHGmSh7f-0

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I remember when people would throw animal blood on rich fucks going to gala events who were wearing fur.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Right? I admit I don't have the bravery it takes to do stuff like that, but it seems like neither does anyone else anymore.

[–] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So... that's straight up assaut. There's a good reason why they changed tactics, and it's mostly because throwing soup at a Plexiglas barrier is 100x less destructive to property than covering valuable furs with blood.

I find it absolutely mind-boggling that you all are acknowledging that protests that make people uncomfortable are what works, then coming to the conclusion "but not like this, you can't protest like this, that's ridiculous!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 week ago (14 children)

Then we wouldn’t be talking about stopping oil production right now.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

We’re not talking about stopping oil production. We’re talking about these nutcases. And when we do get back to the important topic, now it’s harder to get support, harder to stay on topic, environmental concerns are more likely to be dismissed with jokes about throwing soup

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Then they would be in cages already.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I brought up Karen Silkwood and Erin Brockovich elsewhere. They were not put in cages. They were just willing to do some very hard work rather than just stunts.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Imagine if all the people I disagree with did the thing I wanted...

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)