No matter what the form of protest, you will think it’s tone-deaf because you have been trained to. The oil industry spends a lot of money spamming comments like yours because they know eventually, fools will start parroting it for them.
What’s your reasoning? Do you think it’s ineffective even though it’s made world wide news. Is non destructive play vandalism of old rocks somehow too extreme of a response for the clear destruction of our environment?
It’s hard not to be part of the problem, since over consumption habits are difficulty to get rid of when no else is. I won’t fault you for that. Protests aren’t everyone’s thing, whatever.
At the minimum though, you could just not be a mouthpiece for the ones who are causing said problem. Seriously, like if you’ve ever given a shit about stone hedge before.
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?
No matter what the form of protest, you will think it’s tone-deaf because you have been trained to. The oil industry spends a lot of money spamming comments like yours because they know eventually, fools will start parroting it for them.
What’s your reasoning? Do you think it’s ineffective even though it’s made world wide news. Is non destructive play vandalism of old rocks somehow too extreme of a response for the clear destruction of our environment?
It’s hard not to be part of the problem, since over consumption habits are difficulty to get rid of when no else is. I won’t fault you for that. Protests aren’t everyone’s thing, whatever.
At the minimum though, you could just not be a mouthpiece for the ones who are causing said problem. Seriously, like if you’ve ever given a shit about stone hedge before.
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?
How did they come to such a conclusion anyway?
Not exactly a great message in terms of optics. Usually a bad idea to insult your audience