GRcade

site23 wrote:

Moggy wrote:

site23 wrote:If you went back and told Van Gogh about this incident, I'm sure he would have said, "Waar heb je het over? Waarom zijn je kleren zo raar?" and I think that's really beautiful.

Nah, he'd be saying "Dus ze kreeg de topbaan, vermoordde de koningin en ontsloeg haar minnaar, allemaal binnen een paar weken?"

I haven't been following parliamentary politics very closely over the last few weeks, what I'm getting from this post is that Truss is involved is some kind of centuries-long Assassin's Creed style conspiracy. Maybe I should turn on the news.

Moggy wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:I like to think Van Gogh would have been anti-megathread and pro-soup

Pro-soup? You're getting confused with Warhol.

Preezy wrote:

Moggy wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:I like to think Van Gogh would have been anti-megathread and pro-soup

Pro-soup? You're getting confused with Warhol.

site23 wrote:MLK was one of the most hated men in America at the peak of the civil rights movement. Protests do not exist to chase short-term popularity. Temporarily and harmlessly obscuring a painting is one of the most mild forms of protest I can think of - if you are against this then there clearly isn't any form of protest moderate enough to satisfy you. Climate change is going to kill or displace billions of people. It is going to cause immeasurable suffering and unfathomable destruction. It is already in full swing and not one single person alive today can escape its impact - it's already here. Capitalism is a death cult, and the fact that these meek and polite protests are all we currently have to resist it makes me feel pure abject terror.

Guess you could call that a "Thing That Annoys Me".

Also, I thought we had a rule against posting political content in this thread?

OrangeRKN wrote:Vincent can Broth*

*This joke only works if you pronounce Gogh incorrectly

Tomous wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Ironhide wrote:While I agree with the message behind the protests, I think the acts of petty vandalism actively do damage to their cause by turning the general population against them.

I agree. You want to make people sympathetic to your cause. They aren't doing this.

People really care that much about some glass?

A lot of the media are reporting it in a way that doesn't make it at all clear the painting wasn't damaged, for obvious (and dishonest reasons). I can understand people being upset initially but can't fathom people still being upset once they find out it's behind glass and no damage was caused

Stugene wrote:They're an intelligence agency controlled agent provocateur group.

Clarkman wrote:I wrote the following on this -

My hot take is that environmental activism cannot succeed when its primary goal is to bait headlines. Public awareness is not the issue (especially among those who are indignant about attacks on art). In every instance of major change where collective action succeeds, it is driven by the public's fury regarding a deep injustice having been perpetuated/enabled. Framing climate change as a political & corporate abuse/betrayal of trust is a much more powerful catalyst to engendering shifts in policy. Stunts at galleries and football matches are a distraction, misdirecting indignation towards those who appear to seek to centre themselves in the dialogue. Radical acts achieve radical headlines, but real change is slow and boring and anonymous and boundless.

site23 wrote:MLK was one of the most hated men in America at the peak of the civil rights movement. Protests do not exist to chase short-term popularity. Temporarily and harmlessly obscuring a painting is one of the most mild forms of protest I can think of - if you are against this then there clearly isn't any form of protest moderate enough to satisfy you. Climate change is going to kill or displace billions of people. It is going to cause immeasurable suffering and unfathomable destruction. It is already in full swing and not one single person alive today can escape its impact - it's already here. Capitalism is a death cult, and the fact that these meek and polite protests are all we currently have to resist it makes me feel pure abject terror.

twitter.com/peachlux_/status/1580869816503926790

more heat than light wrote:

site23 wrote:MLK was one of the most hated men in America at the peak of the civil rights movement. Protests do not exist to chase short-term popularity. Temporarily and harmlessly obscuring a painting is one of the most mild forms of protest I can think of - if you are against this then there clearly isn't any form of protest moderate enough to satisfy you. Climate change is going to kill or displace billions of people. It is going to cause immeasurable suffering and unfathomable destruction. It is already in full swing and not one single person alive today can escape its impact - it's already here. Capitalism is a death cult, and the fact that these meek and polite protests are all we currently have to resist it makes me feel pure abject terror.

Do you mind if I nab this to annoy some Facebook friends? It's bang on, and describes my thoughts more succinctly than I could ever write myself.

Ironhide wrote:

Stugene wrote:They're an intelligence agency controlled agent provocateur group.

Never had you down as a conspiracy theorist.

Stugene wrote:

Ironhide wrote:

Stugene wrote:They're an intelligence agency controlled agent provocateur group.

Never had you down as a conspiracy theorist.

They literally don't make sense in any other way.

more heat than light wrote:Do you mind if I nab this to annoy some Facebook friends? It's bang on, and describes my thoughts more succinctly than I could ever write myself.

Moggy wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Ironhide wrote:While I agree with the message behind the protests, I think the acts of petty vandalism actively do damage to their cause by turning the general population against them.

I agree. You want to make people sympathetic to your cause. They aren't doing this.

People really care that much about some glass?

Yubel wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Ironhide wrote:While I agree with the message behind the protests, I think the acts of petty vandalism actively do damage to their cause by turning the general population against them.

I agree. You want to make people sympathetic to your cause. They aren't doing this.

People really care that much about some glass?

A Van Gogh painting - one of the most famous paintings in history - has nothing to do with this protest, surely. I don't care what their intentions are, that doesn't give you license to commit acts of vandalism.

EDIT: and additionally, even if the painting wasn't damaged, this is still anti-social behaviour worth condemning. We should be better than this.