• Pisodeuorrior@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Also, this seems like a much, MUCH better PR move than throwing paint at masterpieces in fucking museums.
    I don’t know who thought that was something that would have moved the public opinion towards their cause.

    • acannan@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well it did seem to do a good job bringing attention to their cause. And, the worst damage incurred over the dozens of demonstrations was some minor frame damage. Imo it was kind of a brilliant scheme to get worldwide attention for the price of some tomato soup

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They were throwing paint into corporate offices and CEO’s cars at the same time. The media chose to put the art vandalism on blast. I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out the art vandalism was the idea of a corporate mole.

      • marmo7ade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Multiple things can be true at the same time. The art vandalism deserves to be put on blast. I would be surprised if it was a corporate mole because I heard those people talk and I believe them. They think they were justified.

        • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, I can believe that true believers thought that art vandalism was a good idea, but I’m just skeptical about where the idea originated from.

      • Cihta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The media… that made me think of old days but right now I’m watching some hurricane coverage that is obviously in a helicopter. And I’m thinking why…

        A large 6 rotor “drone” is cheap and can sustain a motor failure. Cheap compared to the camera it carries. You can have a fleet and maybe 2 cameras and just swap them out as needed. With gps the pilot just needs to tap on a touch screen, camera operator just has to get framing right, and the tech that maintains everything can be had at a poverty level wage.

        Oof, that wasn’t positive. But I do wonder what they use now. We had wall to wall coverge of trump flying his old 757 to Atlanta and back and really hope that was drones. Sorry heli pilots. You are still cool, it’s just expensive.

      • books@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not to sound like a dick, but you sort of sound like Matt Gaetz accusing Antifa of J6.

        There is zero proof that these people are moles. I’d be hard pressed to find a white 20 something to act the part of a climate activist, on the behalf of the oil companies.