Be careful what you wish for, or they will find the one woman trained in medicine who wants to sterilize people using logic derived from eugenics.

Endorsements have been a thing throughout a lot of human history because we are very social beings. It may sound silly, but some people literally care more what an entertainer says instead of any or all politicians or political experts, and will vote because of it.

I like that it’s the Democrats fault for whenever these issues failed, and not the Republicans who universally vote against them. Remove every Republican and I bet we start seeing these issues getting passed.

Children never show up to vote, that’s why they keep losing their rights.

There is really only one major party against ranked choice voting. Every year, Democratic caucuses vote to add ranked choice voting to their platform. Democrats have managed to get Ranked Choice Voting in several cities.

Republicans do not. Republicans repeal RCV. Every RCV repeal in the US was done by Republicans.

Both parties are not the same, and if you really want a third party candidate, you’re better off getting rid of every Republican you can.

My point is why mess with a place what has nothing to do with climate change, and not mess with places that absolutely do have something to do with it?

They did. They do. They probably will in the future as well.

But, it seems as though people care more about art being faux-vandalized than they do about the planet dying, so those don’t make the front pages, or you would’ve known this.

Also, no, it looked at 9 specific studies, not “all” studies. It’s conclusions are basically “We need more studies.”

I looked at your study, but all it showed was that there were no statistically significant side effects for puberty blockers, so what’s the problem?

No, a bad faith argument would be using one study and a handful of doctors that aren’t specialists in the area that agrees with you versus the hundreds of studies and thousands of doctors that specialize in the area that don’t.

I’m gonna call bullshit on “too toxic.” There were literal riots over getting civil rights. There were literal murders over getting civil rights. A lot of the reason why MLK looked so good was because there were those who took extreme actions, and his nonviolent protests would sometimes be treated the same as the violent ones. But you think a stall-in would be too far? Should we use the Suffragettes instead, who also vandalized museums (worse than these guys)? Was that too toxic? What a silly argument.

Condering that the art is unharmed, and they glue themselves to the gallery waiting for the police while explaining what their goals are so that passersby film them to spread the message, I’d say that they are, frankly, pretty distinguishable from vandals, or do you know of other vandals that do that?

Well destroying the Earth does not in anyway benefit art, either, but we’re still doing that one.

Is blocking traffic invalid then? Because that was also part of the civil disobedience used in the civil rights movement. Oh wait, they DID claim it invalid then, too!

“We do not need allies more devoted to order than to justice,” Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in the spring of 1964, refusing calls from moderate Black and White leaders to condemn a planned highway “stall-in” to highlight systemic racism in New York City. “I hear a lot of talk these days about our direct action talk alienating former friends,” he added. “I would rather feel they are bringing to the surface latent prejudices that are already there. If our direct action programs alienate our friends … they never were really our friends.”

It’s weird that there are people in this thread that think defacing the protective barrier of a painting is too far, but advocating for harming or killing oil industry executives is not because the painting didn’t do anything to cause our climate emergency. By that argument, defacing a building with grafitti can’t work, blocking traffic would put more pollution in the air, blowing up a pipeline would kill innocent people and animals.

Nothing is good enough for them except the status quo. They’d rather a museum burned down in a riot than plexiglass get covered in soup because riots are okay (but once that happens, the pearls will be clutched again.)

“We do not need allies more devoted to order than to justice,” Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in the spring of 1964, refusing calls from moderate Black and White leaders to condemn a planned highway “stall-in” to highlight systemic racism in New York City. “I hear a lot of talk these days about our direct action talk alienating former friends,” he added. “I would rather feel they are bringing to the surface latent prejudices that are already there. If our direct action programs alienate our friends … they never were really our friends.”

“What’s blocking traffic have to do with racism? All it does is make people mad at black people!”

History rhymes.

Removed by mod

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.