Stonehenge sprayed with orange powder paint by Just Stop Oil activists
Stonehenge sprayed with orange powder paint by Just Stop Oil activists
Two people arrested, say police, while Rishi Sunak’s comments on protest prompt response from Labour donor
If you ever wanted to read about fake druids vs. environmental activists, now's your chance.
You're viewing a single thread.
Those stones will be suuuper useful to us after we died because our global ecosystem collapsed.
Maybe we should set up our own stones for explaining to future generations why we didnt do anything about climate change until it was too late.
I'm not sure how this helps though. These people can say to future generations, "well, we didn't get people to stop using fossil fuels, but we did damage a 5000-year-old monument that was made long before anyone had the idea of burning fossil fuels to make people aware of a problem they were already aware of but powerless to do anything about."
This isn't going to stop oil companies from drilling for oil.
It reminds me of a friend of mine I used to follow elsewhere on social media. Every day, she would post pictures of 'death row dogs' in nearby shelters that were going to be euthanized. There was fuck all I could do about it. I already have two dogs, from shelters. I don't have room for more and I couldn't afford more. So all it did was make me feel like shit. Then she started posting photos with "too late" messages and I stopped following her.
How does that help?
but we did damage a 5000-year-old monument
As far as I could find out, they used orange cornflour that will just wash off the next time it rains. The most amount of damage anyone could seriously bring up was that it could harm/displace the lichen on the henge.
That's not to say that I specifically condone the action, but it's a lot less bad than this article makes it sound. It's the same with the soup attack on one of van Gogh's painting, which had protective glass on it. So far all the JSO actions targeting cultural/historical things (at least the ones that made it to the big news) have been done in a way that makes them sound awful at first hearing, but intentionally did not actually damage the targeted cultural/historical thing.
I think the biases of the journalist/news outlet/etc. are somewhat exposed by which parts they focus on and which they downplay or omit entirely.
I hope you're right because this article says they used a spray can.
Also, orange dye can easily get into cracks in the rocks and stay there for a very long time. Especially if it displaces the lichens. That won't make it collapse, so maybe 'damage' is not the right word, but this is potentially long-lasting vandalism which, as far as I can see, will have no effect on the actual problem.
I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.
Which brings me back to the last point in my comment.
I also hope I'm right. The two times I looked into it (right after the attack and before writing my comment) both came up with that result. Also it seems that English Heritage came out today saying there was "No visible damage".
As I said, I'm not writing to defend the action, just pointing out that the OP article is, willfully or not, omitting certain aspects that could make JSO look a little bit better.
Edit: Formatting
To play devil's advocate against the devil's advocate, I'm not sure "Stonehenge covered with orange corn starch by Just Stop Oil activists" would have communicated the kind of emergency these activists are hoping to convey, so they're clearly counting on the headline grabbing people's attention and triggering their outrage meter. In that way, the journalist might even think they're helping the JSO group.
I agree, I think they've been remarkably responsible about avoiding lasting damage. What upsets me is how they're fueling the far-right rage machine with more propaganda ammunition at a time when we are already fighting a fierce and undecided battle to live in a world that isn't run by exclusionary ideological nationalistic idiots.
It's like they cannot understand that some people don't want the world saved, and agree with Hitler when he wrote about the tears of war being the bread of future generations. A sentiment that basically says suffering=good. So, more suffering=better. Will climate change cause suffering? Well, guess what then.
How does that help?
We're talking about it
But we're not talking about it. We're not talking about political action, or technological solutions, or mitigation programs, or investments in adaptation, or natural resource management, or harm reduction, or food distribution, or drought management.
No, we're talking about a bunch of first world children who decided to paint a bunch of ten-thousand year old rocks for attention.
“The orange cornflour we used to create an eye-catching spectacle will soon wash away with the rain..."
will soon wash away with the rain..."
Just like any attention they may have grabbed due to their stunt.
For the record, I'm not saying I agree with their methods, but I don't think it's fair to them either that everyone is acting like they did irreparable harm to the monument.
.
But it also stops us from talking about anything else. Part of this is not allowing other things to take over. Yes it would be even better if the discussion focussed on a productive way forward. It would be worse if we were discussing something else.
And therein lies the problem with today's generations. Instead of doing the hard work of getting involved in civic groups and local politics in order to mobilize voters and enact real, substantive change, we're taking the short cut by spraying shit on the walls so no one can talk about anything else.
You made my point very succinctly, so thanks for that.
Oh I see we are at the "this generation is lazy" level of discussion. Have a nice day.
I'd say spraying colored powder on archeological sites and art galleries instead of getting involved in civic action to enact societal and economic change counts as lazy, yes.
I mean how do you know that this "instead of" is factual and isn't in reality a "additionally to"?
Their website. It's a string of performative, attention-seeking destruction, peppered with the rare "letter to party leaders" or "disrupted" public event.
It's clear as day.
It's possible to be a part of multiple organisations. Just because someone is part of JSO that doesn't mean they can't also be active in other groups. Highly motivated people like these tend to do that. It also makes sense to not lump these efforts under one name so that the public messaging doesn't get muddied.
Which does exactly what? Is it at all likely that anyone actually able to do anything about this was unaware of the climate change disaster we're facing and this will change their mind?
If you dont see any value in common discourse, you have already given up on life and the world imo.
This is hardly common discourse.
you have already given up on life and the world
Yeah, that sounds about accurate for me...
Many of the recent protests about climate change have been less direct and more about stirring up controversy to force the public to actually think about their decisions.
My hat off to them as so far this style of protest has been working and has resulted in many of us pushing for better climate control.
You're right this isn't going to stop companies, but even if you disagreed with them it puts climate change in your conscious mind. Even if that simply means you'll try to make slightly more climate friendly decisions moving forwards, that's a win.
Personally I don't know if I agree with the technique, but I do feel like it has been working in terms of making people discuss this topic more.
.
My hat off to them as so far this style of protest has been working and has resulted in many of us pushing for better climate control.
I don't know that I believe that is because of these protests and not just seeing what's happening to the world. I really do not see pissing people off by painting Stonehenge, especially when it's during a religious festival, helping this cause.
Normally I would say this damage was inappropriate. But, considering humanity is going to be eradicated in the next hundred years, give or take, I think maybe we should be doing more to slow that down.
FWIW this kind of alarmist talk only lets people write off your comment as hysterical. Humans are not going to go extinct in the next 100 years, Canada isnt going to become hotter than Arabia and become unlivable.
What we might (and even possibly the most likely scenario is to) get is wide scale societal breakdown, starvation of billions, mass migration of billions of those currently living in regions that become uninhabitable but dont starve, and the consequant resource wars that those entail. The future is bleak enough without making up even worse things that wont happen.
Would you like to make a wager?
That a viable population of humans will be alive in 2124? Sure how much do you want to bet? I think your chance of collecting from me if im wrong when im more than 120 years old are slim though.
1k, put in escrow. Pay out to whomever.
Yes thats a sane thing to do, agree to put money in escrow until after im dead. Totally something people do.
Also YOU ARE LITERALLY SAYING EVERYONE WILL BE DEAD THERE WOULD BE NO ONE TO COLLECT
Yes. One gazillion dollars.
See? See how ridiculous you sound?
That does sound ridiculous, but it’s your comment not mine.
.
You don’t have any money
But how will this slow that down?
The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Obviously humanity is not being squeaky enough. Maybe if enough things are destroyed, The rest of the world will finally pay attention.
Why do you think "the world" matters? This is mostly the fault of a few corporations and their executives couldn't give less of a shit about what someone does to Stonehenge.
How do we stop evil corporations? With political action. How do we get political action? Either by voting or collective activism.
There's no solution that doesn't require ourselves to spring into action, even if it's "mostly the fault of a few corporations and their executives".
Voting for whom? They're all corrupt, or haven't you noticed? We're living in a global oligarchy.
Also, why on Earth do you think environmental activists pissing people off will help with any sort of collective action?
Ah, a doomer. So let me guess, there's nothing we can do and every form of activism is useless?
Just go on with your day then. This protest certainly isn't about you. They didn't hurt you personally, so why not just let them do their thing. The people who believe solutions exist can continue to search for them and you don't have to bother.
Or do you actually have something helpful in mind?
I'm not sure why you think I should answer your questions when you won't do me the courtesy of answering mine. That's incredibly rude of you.
Your questions seemed rather rhetorical to me. As long as you act on the premise that there's no solution, any conversation about the topic - including this one - is a monumental waste of time. So let's just leave it at that.
Oh I don’t think the world matters. In fact, I’m super happy humanity is about to be wiped out of existence. We are all pieces of shit.
But you would think more people would be interested in saving it. A significant portion of humanity is uninterested in hearing about Global warming. Those people need to wake up.
A significant portion of humanity is uninterested in hearing about Global warming
What is "significant?"
And, again, hearing about it doesn't mean you can do something about it. There's fuck all I can do about it.
I thought oil was the problem?
Their point is absolutely valid. Their method is absurd. This doesn't generate a dialogue, it undermines the point by enabling opponents to rightfully condemn the vandalism and changes no minds.
Attacking art or culture is counterproductive.
Yet this kind of protests just alienates the protesters from the population they want support from
They want support from me.
Your example shows exactly what people are missing. Just because you did not have the capacity for more dogs doesnt mean that other people never got convinced to save one of those dogs. If those pictures convinced even just one person to adopt a dog, then it was worth the minor inconvienience that you had to go through.
Similarly the actual damage from this protest is slim to none (if they used the same stuff as usual that just washes away with water) and if it convinces somebody to get politically active for climate change then it was already worth it.
You thinking that you are powerless, shouldnt result in other people being forced to be powerless when they are not.
Who's actually doing that, though? I mean that sincerely. Is there anyone who wouldn't have gotten involved, but who was swayed to do so by orange paint on historical artifacts? This seems like directionless compensatory venting by activists whose other strategies are failing to meaningfully persuade.
Further, what's the balance of people in the other direction who have an inkling that they'd consider doing more, but who are swayed against it by the increasingly unhinged extremist tactics these protestors are using? There's an entire online ecosystem rife with a combination of climate denialism, analytical paralysis, and doomsaying, and there's a non-zero number of people who likely either stop caring or throw their hands up in frustration because protestors are doing more harm than good by throwing what I'm sure looks to them like ridiculous tantrums. For every ally they gain, they probably lose some, too.
And that's not even touching on the fact that systemic structural changes are the only possible solution to this problem, and making the average person feel guilty and/or agitated is a weird form of victim shaming.
A better way to propose your question is: out of all the millions of people on Earth who hear about these activities, will literally 0 of them take any meaningful action against climate change?
The likelihood of that quite small, suggesting a non-zero value. That non-zero value is likely to be smaller than the damages of water-washable paint.
I'm not advocating for anyone here, but I think that's the calculus OP was suggesting, and it makes perfect sense to me.
If eye-rolling and annoyance produced greenhouse gases, then it might be a different story.
I'm not sure I follow. You're suggesting that >0 people take meaningful action as a result of hearing about this protest. I'm saying that >0 people take fewer meaningful actions as a result, and >0 probably turn away from your cause when they hear about stupid shit like this. So for every one convert in the right direction, there are some in the other direction. Whether or not the two balance is certainly up for debate, and which side you prefer to highlight at the expense of the other, depends on your preconceived opinion.
Which really just reiterates that this kind of nonsense is a net negative, because the people who respond positively to it were already converts in the first place.
That's not how climate change works. Everybody except for politicians and fossil fuel executives are me in this scenario. We're just being told constantly how the world is getting hotter and something must be done and there's fuck all I can do about it. And that's also true of every person at Stonehenge that day.
We can't control where the energy comes from and what cars are made and what bottles drinks are put in. And it's really clear that it doesn't matter who we vote for either.
So, in this situation, people see these stunts and just get angry and stop paying attention since there's nothing they can do about it anyway.
Again, how does this help?
There are so many "annoying" protests that this logic can be applied to that would seem pretty short-sighted in retrospect.
It's not these people that future generations will think poorly of.
So this is just about what future generations will think, not about solutions?
It’s not the same thing. At least your friend was calling attention to a cause she cared about
Much like climate change- who is not aware that there are dogs getting euthanized in shelters?
I don't understand why all of you are talking about raising awareness of something everyone is aware of.
Here in the US we have one of the two main political factions regularly threatening terrorism, execution and even war.
When people are already arguing to take you out behind the chemical shed and shoot you, it's a little out of touch to think they give two shits about your future health in a changing climate. Or our planet, they probably think they can get to Mars with Elon or something, or god will rapture them, or whatever they think, I don't know.
You think people should care about future generations? They probably should, but we have parents that don't give two shits about their own kids, much less anyone else's.