Does throwing soup at paintings stop the oil industry? Has it made a single dent in their massive profits?

I’m glad you asked because it’s good to be a learned adult! The UK government has stopped the licensing of new oil, gas, and coal projects since Just Stop Oil started their campaign of civil disobedience. New levies have also been placed on oil and gas company profits, that are increasing as of November.

Additionally, membership in Just Stop Oil continues to grow. So, it looks like, yes, throwing soup on paintings (as well as other forms of nonviolent resistance) DOES appear to put a dent in the profits of oil companies.

Think of how much faster it would’ve been to ask that right off the bat instead of being so insipid :)

Did they or did they not offset the oil industry: yes or no?

See, I can do the same thing you did. It required me to argue in bad faith.

I don’t care if we have any monuments if we also have an oil industry that kills the planet. I don’t want an oil industry. That is the answer! It has nothing to do with monuments, but monuments don’t matter if we have an oil industry.

Not that it matters, because no art was harmed here, as you could plainly read in the article.

Frankly, most people don’t want climate change, and most people would get used to having no oil industry really fast. I mean, we got used to Covid.

I’m not evading the question, you just don’t like my answer and want one to that you can feel superior about, so you are attempting to lead me to a frankly ridiculous question based on what I can only assume is purposeful malintent.

There is no art on a dead planet. There are no monuments without people. People give those things meaning. If we all die for the oil industry, then what good was the plexiglass covered in soup protecting that painting?

It’s great that the carbon output of those art installations is so low. Did it offset the oil industry? If no, then who cares?

Just. Stop. Oil.

You’ll have to excuse me, your gotcha question was of low quality, so I assumed you set me up a slam dunk.

My mistake, I expected too much.

Is your question seriously: Would I rather monuments be destroyed and people be alive, or that people be dead and monuments be preserved? Because obviously people are more important. But, if we stop climate change, we are likely to be able to enjoy both people being alive and monuments being preserved.

No, I would prefer we just stop oil.

If we’re all dead, the memorials are for all of us anyway.

There is no art on a dead planet.

Bringing attention and drawing ire are both sides of the same coin. Your sentence points of the hypocrisy:

Take your protests to the places that control these issues. Not a fucking art gallery.

They have been doing that for decades. And it didn’t do anything, did it? The fact that you tell them to do this points out how ineffective it was because you didn’t even know they were.

This same rhetoric you’re saying existed during many protests, from the suffragettes to the civil rights, and it’s always the same response. “It’s ineffective.” “It’s bothering people.” “Do it elsewhere.” “You’re making the cause worse.” It gets pretty repetitive.

It does. There’s actually been a fair amount of change from it, and pointing out the incredibly harsh punishments targetted at Just Stop Oil kinda shows that. If it didn’t accomplish anything, why lock up activists for years for an act that was solved by cleaning the plexiglass?

The name is the message. Just Stop Oil. And it does work.

And yet, you talk about Just Stop Oil, so it does work.

What does Vincent van Gogh have to do with the current state of the petrol industry? What does any classical artist have to do with the current state of the petrol industry? Why go out of one’s way to try and ruin something that isn’t even remotely related to the subject? They’re only making themselves look like a bad joke.

They literally address this: “There is no art on a dead planet.” If all humans are dead, art means nothing. Just stop using oil.

Pearl clutching aside, the art was protected by a plexiglass barrier and did no permanent harm.

I kinda remember this pandemic response team we used to have… Good thing we didn’t and currently still don’t have an ongoing pandemic killing people worldwide!

People resisted and got a corrupt Supreme Court, dismantled consumer, environmental, worker, and abortion protections, an attempted coup, and somehow we all treat Covid like it wasn’t fucking Trump’s fault.

Shut the actual fuck up, you accelerationist piece of shit. Congratulations on your willingness to sacrifice people who didn’t agree to be sacrificed, I’d rather keep more people alive, Anerica and the world got pretty fucked by Trump.

Worked out really great in 2016, didn’t it? Absolutely brainless take with no basis in reality.

Waymo sucks. They get stuck a lot, tend to cost as much or more than Uber and Lyft, and you basically hope they don’t get stuck trying to navigate around situations because you basically wait until remote assistance fixes it. Also, if you live anywhere near where they park the things, you want Waymo to die in a fire because they honk. ALL. NIGHT. LONG.

I’ll just give you an example even if it’s not reated to unlocking phones: A black BMW 335i is filmed hitting a pedestrian and the plate number finishes with a 5. We’re gonna need to have a look at every BMW within these parameters. If you prevent the police from checking your car by hiding it, a guilty guy might have more time to hide his car and a crime is gonna go unpunished, leaving a victim with no one to pay for his injuries.

And if my car was in an unrelated accident but just happened to fit those criteria, you could use that as evidence against me (and not only that, but then stop trying to solve the crime because you’ve assumed the perpetrator.) It ALWAYS goes both ways. If the only way you can solve a crime is by violating people’s privacy without a warrant, maybe don’t be a cop.

Cops are seen as bad guys because people like you argue for why rights shouldn’t apply to people, and making you get a warrant (aka doing your job) is seen as interfering with a crime.

The worst part is, it is stupidly easy to get warrants here in the US, but the cops WILL make your life miserable if you make them get one.

You could have a goal to destroy and replace the Republican party instead, no? Seems like it’d be an overall better solution to be, shifting all parties further to the left, especially if you consider the Democractic party too far right. I mean, why keep the reactionary party?

If Democrats are that bad, then why can’t the international solidarity be built against them? Why must you advocate for the sacrifices of women, minorities, and LGBT people? Because the people of Gaza aren’t going to be saved by Republicans, that’s for fucking sure.

It’s called Accelerationism, and it tends to work out exceptionally poorly for vulnerable groups, and it also has a significant chance to fail.

So, your goal to fight genocide with more genocide seems to have a fatal flaw.

And yet, letting Trump be president is doing that genocide faster and harsher, stripping women, minorities, and LGBT people of rights, AND MORE!