To think throwing soup over Van Gogh paintings won't stop oil.

[Thfrog]

There are other ways of protesting oil that make more sense than chucking soup over Van Gogh paintings. Or they need to explain why soup and why Van Gogh more clearly.

Of course it won't "Stop Oil" (whatever that might mean), but it does give these idiots a sense of smug self-satisfaction that they are "doing something".

Completely pointless form of protest but you can't argue with stupid.

I think we can judge how thick they are by how much effective change they have achieved. Which as far as I can see is absolutely bugger all. If you keep doing the same thing and expect different results you are not just thick but crazy.

It might permanently damage - I speak as one with a working knowledge of conservation

China does these things to manufacture shit for us. JSO are trying to make us give a toss so we stop endlessly consuming without a second thought about need or providence.

We can displace blame on China and India all we want but it does absolve us of our responsibility.

Given the fact that climate change is not a priority for the public or the government, what change do you think they can bring about?

I always assumed they were in part expressing how futile it is trying to get engagement. I don't know much about them personally obviously, but the way people react to them seems so weird to me.

It's because their parents are giving them less attention I presume

When everyone on the bus is weird apart from you... Maybe it's you.

Tell that to Rosa Parks.

Some people have to take the lead in being the change.

Yes maybe, I am open to that!

I just personally find it weird people are angrier about others protesting about climate change than they are about climate change itself.

I think a lot of people seem to have their heads totally in the sand about climate change.

Everyone should follow suit in drawing attention to their cause.

I can't figure out how to stop my scummy neighbours from littering their waste all over the street. The local government are not interested enough to crack down hard on the problem.
So..... I'll go and dump soup all over the interiors of the nearest National Trust property.
Anyone who doesn't get the idea, is not cultured enough to get it and is a part of the problem. Unlike myself - I am a warrior doing my part for the cleaner environment.

Oh, I have other causes too!

I thought it was due to the fact that more money is spent protecting old obsolete items from the past, rather than investing in future generations

I can understand this point.

It's pretty weird what we're wasting energy on, collectively.

I imagine some of the JSO protestors feel it's pointless really, so many people push back against any progress or change. It's not their responsibility to get the climate change deniers to change their minds, it's impossible to do that anyway unless they wish to.

If you think littering and climate change are in any way the same, you are part of the problem.

You seem to be trying to turn this into a class fight. Why?

There is a privilege that comes with being middle class - self-assurance, access to legal funds, judged more favourably etc. This may go some way to explaining the background of the protesters, rather than some cosplay Pulp song.

excatly, besides it seems they want to be the next Gretta

@bergamotorange I just personally find it weird people are angrier about others protesting about climate change than they are about climate change itself.

Oh, I am mightily pissed off about the cold, wet and gloomy last two summers! Definitely more angry about that than some silly climate protesters. And I am more than happy to throw soup all over the place if it gives us some sun the next spring/summer!
I'll even throw spag bol if that avoids the next ice-age!

@Thfrog On one hand, some activists argue that these disruptive actions are necessary to draw attention to climate issues that are often sidelined. The goal is to shock the public and media into engaging with the cause, creating conversations that might otherwise be ignored.

However, as Thfrog points out, the direct connection between damaging famous artworks and stopping oil consumption is unclear to many observers. The act may be symbolic, but without a clear message tying Van Gogh or the soup to the oil industry, it risks alienating potential supporters rather than inspiring action.

Why don't they lie naked on the pavement outside the NG with flowers in every orifice? That would get plenty of attention and not damage art works...

If that is the point then it's well done but they need to make it a tad clearer

Plus any protestors blocking roads risking public emergency services should be criminally charged with public endangerment and or their hypocrisy shown eg when they use the very substances they advocate against

@Yamantau Yes this is where i think they need to have clearer communication with the public.
@oObyeOo has a good interpretation. If that's their intended interpretation it would be good to know. As otherwise I find it hard to relate to their protest and it just seems like flinging soup at paintings.

Oh, you’re a climate change denier.

What a waste of words this was.

No it isn't, who are you & oObyeOo to say art is "obsolete"?

I haven't said I agree with their point. I've said if that is their point they have made it well it just needs explanation to the public.

I don't think it's the same - my neighbours and the filthy street are actually a greater problem for me right now. As is escalating local crime and shit educational prospects for my child.

Being born into a privileged background (or just the privilege of being too young to understand) brings along a certain viewpoint - one unobstructed by the more immediate problems of daily grind. It also can bring arrogance.
So when there's no shit on your own metaphorical doorstep, it must be tantalising to go and 'solve climate'.

Well good luck to them - as I said, I wouldn't mind my summers back!

Well if they try it they would not win many converts as it is neither logically connected to climate change nor objectively true.