Just Stop Oil activists throw soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers after fellow protesters jailed

So if throwing paint at a entierly replaceable cover for a dusty old painting is too far gone to be acceptable, what action can we take to stop oil production? Like. It needs to stop. To continue producing fossil fuels is a death cult. It needs to stop, like, a decade ago. I ask genuinely, how is this too far, and what is an acceptable response to an existential threat?

edit: On the off chance someone reads this so long after the post, I just want to point out that nobody actually engaged with my question here.

So if throwing paint at a entierly replaceable cover for a dusty old painting is too far gone to be acceptable, what action can we take to stop oil production?
God, I wish someone could actually trace the train of events that would lead to reduced oil production from this other than some bizarre notion that throwing soup at a priceless artifact of human heritage will Energize The Masses(tm) or suddenly convince people who think climate change is a hoax or overblown that it's actually a serious problem.
- Imagine if these activists spent more time going after companies benefiting from fossil fuel production rather than throwing soup in museums...
- Wish granted
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.)
Go fuck with the billionaires and lawmakers at their homes, offices, doctor's appointments, at the store, while they're out for coffee, etc. Fuck with the people actually causing the problem
Instead of intentionally pissing people off at climate protesters, put effort towards educating people on the myriad of ways we actually subsidize fossil fuels and the corrupt relationships that keep that going, so people instead get pissed off at the fossil fuel industry, lobbyists, and corrupt politicians.
Of course some people do work on this already, Climate Town being a good example. We should be talking about those efforts instead of these.
- “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.
I’m not sure it’s the acceptability that needs to be discussed here. In what way does this stop oil? The way you phrase your comment seems to presuppose that this is a useful action but some find it unacceptable. You’re skipping right over the main problem with this. Destroying art is not a useful act.
And yet it damaged the frame, prevented people from enjoying a work of art and cost money from a museum that has nothing to do with the cause
Oh, I dunno, any action that's actually related to the industry? Throwing crap at classic art as a means to bring attention to a cause completely unrelated to classic art is retarded.
What's your plan to keep society functioning with the immediate end of fossil fuels?
- That wasn't my question. But if you must know, if the choice is between "maintaining the current standard of living" and "stop risking the habitability of the one place known that can support life", I choose the latter. Everytime. And it's crazy to choose the former.
- Kinda dumb of you to assume the only option to stop oil is an immediate cessation of all usage
- Why does it have to be an immediate end and not a phase out? Right now, we're not even phasing out.
- Society functioning in the way it's currently functioning is the cause of the problem. It's gonna stop because we change how we do things, or it'll get stopped in a way we have no control over, which is worse across every possible metric.
- Investing in nuclear would help.

While I think this was a stupid way to go about risking jail time for a noble cause, I would like to remind everybody here of what everybody in the 60s thought about MLK and his peaceful protests:

There never has nor will there ever be such a thing as "the right way to protest." The right way to protest means out of sight where it can be conveniently ignored.

Interesting that you think this is stupid, yet you acknowledge that protests are inherently uncomfortable.
People are talking about Just Stop Oil every time they pull one of these stunts. Sounds like they're accomplishing their goals will bells on.
- They are being noticed, but I'm not sure they do more good than harm:
  Fossil fuel lobbies have long stopped trying to paint oil as good but rather environmentalism as bad, and activists as idiots.
  If you look at old pro-oil propaganda, say 80s-90s it was all about how great life is thank to oil and how bright the future of the oil-based economy was going to be, downplaying climate change and pollution related issues.
  Now they're just engaging in mud throwing because their position is untenable.
  Going for the shock factor may just fuel their game.
- I mean stupid as in "you might as well do something worth the punishment" or that they might have been better off blocking traffic through a major thoroughfare or something rather than possibly damaging a cultural artifact.
  I agree with the concept, just not this particular executation.
- Yeah but what are they saying when they're talking? Most people are saying "look at these crazy climate people, something is clearly wrong with them". Maybe the protesters should do something that makes people say "maybe we should care more about climate change" instead.
  This is a common problem I see with modern protests. Protesters of a certain other cause I won't name spray-painted my neighborhood. I try to be a logical person, and logically I'd like to think my perspective on the issue they were spraypainting about is unaffected. But I can't help but notice that on an emotional level, I really do not want to be on the same side as the people who disrespected me and my neighbors by spraypainting our neighborhood. To the point where if someone says they find that cause important, I actually feel a slight uncontrollable pang of disdain for them.
  I don't think most people try to be as aware of how their emotions affects their thinking as I do.
- Effective protests are uncomfortable. That doesn’t mean that any random act of vandalism is an effective protest. You’re trying to ask a relationship transitive which is not transitive.
I agree except that potential damage to historical pieces makes me extremely upset.
I would prefer they ACTUALLY riot to that.
... and, in fact, that would probably be much more effective.
- They tried protesting at oil infrastructure, they stopped multiple oil terminals in the UK being used for weeks and caused shortages in various parts of the UK. Hundreds went to prison and everyone forgot about it after a week.
  They throw soup at glass, 2 people go to a police station for a few days and people are still talking about it months later.
  Unfortunately, they have to exist within the constraints of modern news media, outrage cycles and social media, and that influences their decisions.
- I mean JSO never actually tried to damage historical pieces. The paintings are behind glass
What you’re really saying is that no effective protest will ever be welcomed as acceptable.
But the way you say it, that there will never be a right way, begs another question: just because legitimate protests will be called wrong, does that mean that all protests are right?
I don’t think so. This is a random act of destruction. I personally find it disgusting to compare this to MLK’s mass demonstrations.
- My argument is not "if a protest is uncomfortable, then it is effective".
  It is "how can you in the same comment say 'this is a stupid way to go about risking jail for a noble cause' and 'there never has nor will there ever be such a thing as "the right way to protest"'?".

It was covered by glass, unclutch your fucking pearls already.
Van Gogh is my favorite painter, and I would still rather have a habitable planet for future generations than have Sunflowers. If you're more mad about this than you are about what big oil and gas companies are doing, sit down and have a good hard think about where your priorities are. I do not give a shit if you "agree with their message but not their tactics" or if you "think it makes the cause look bad" or whatever other bullshit you want to spew to cover your ass right now. Ultimately, if this caused you to feel a greater sense of righteous anger than the wholesale destruction of our environment for profit does, you are part of the problem. I'd rather side with the people who are trying to make a difference, even if I don't like how they do it, than side with the people plundering our world for personal gain.

Van Gogh died penniless, right? He'd probably be cheering. "Oh no, rich people will be slightly less able to profit off of my work?"
- Rich people profiting… is that your description of what happens at an art museum? Maybe you should get off the internet and go visit one.
I would still rather have a habitable planet for future generations than have Sunflowers
What a laughable false dilemma.
I'd rather side with the people who are trying to make a difference
Your instinct is laudable. Where your judgment is failing you is that these are not people who are making a difference. Stop straining to make something meaningful out of a random act of vandalism. The tiniest act of actual divestment from oil would be more meaningful than slopping soup at a painting. Take the bus one day a month instead of driving. That’s a difference.

I see a lot of confusion and misinformation in the comments about what Just Stop Oils demands are. Their website makes it very plain and you can read through the details yourself. The press has massively misrepresented the groups demands and goals so its best to read it for yourself. https://juststopoil.org/

These are the 3 demands they have.

✅ Demand 1: No New Oil and Gas Licences – WON!
🔥 Demand 2: Just Stop Oil by 2030.
🧡 We need a Fossil Fuel Treaty.

Demand 1 they only just won when the UK government changed to Labour who have committed the first item, so all their previous actions were with the goal of not expanding yet further the use of fossil fuels.
Demand 2 is to phase the use of fossil fuels out by 2030. The UK has a net zero goal of 2035 so this would bring that goal earlier but many other countries have a 2030 target in the EU.
Demand 3 is all about trying to get a world wide treaty signed to stop the use of oil to try and meet the Paris agreement to keep within 1.5C.

There is no immediate demand to stop or anything so extreme, they are largely what the UK has already agreed to do but is failing to achieve.

Cool. But the goals are almost beside the point. This action makes people associate goals that I agree with, with being an asshole.
2030 is insanely fast for no oil, it's also way more aggressive than what the UK is planning. Net 0 emissions is different than no oil. Net 0 emissions means you still use a bunch of oil but claim planting a bunch of trees or an algae farm cancels it out. Net 0 emissions doesn't mean stop using oil based products like plastic either. No oil is totally a different demand.
Also UK doesn't plan on net 0 emissions until 2050, 2035 is just massive reduction in transportation emissions.

To everyone in this thread who has nothing but insults for these activists, what are you doing against climate breakdown? Besides sitting on your couch, insulting people who are actually trying to make a difference, facing jail time?

You are the kind of people who would've called the Suffragettes names and said they're hurting the cause, as well.

These clowns ain't doing anything useful about it either.
- Propose something better then. Or better yet, do it.
Why are you placing climate change at the feet of the poor? Go fuck with billionaires and politicians who are causing this issue. All you're doing is stomping the person below you because you're mad at billionaires
I don't own a car. Most of what I do is done via bicycle, with the occasional public transport on the side. I don't buy a new piece of tech whenever it comes out, or throw tech out unless it's well and truly broken. I don't participate in one-day fashion, usually wearing all my clothes till they're threadbare.
But these are all consumer side things. They don't do shit. It's a wonderful corporate ploy to say that climate change is somehow in our hands. But throwing soup at great art sure as fuck isn't going to suddenly change that.
- You still heat your house, maybe even cool it down. You still work, probably for some organisation that pollutes a lot.
  And you said it yourself. Consuming less at an individual level doesn't do shit. Activism does. They're the ones forcing climate change to be on the agenda.
Compared to what they've accomplished by getting some plexiglass wet, it seems like sitting on my couch has accomplished the same. Maybe more by staying home, unless they rode bikes or walked to do the deed.
- No, no, you see, all attention is good attention, and attention is the most valuable thing to the climate change movement right now. That's the issue. Not enough people are AWARE that it's a THING. If they were, we would be making much more progress than we currently are.
  /s
- Definitely more. You haven't pissed a bunch of people off that are on your side on this issue.
Go to a real protest holding a an actual sign with actual message DUHHH
Solared my house. Converted to LED lights. Invested in insulation. Consistently supported political candidates against fracking in primary races. Voted as liberally as possible in general elections. Bought electric car. Home battery. Systematically reduced power usage throughout the house. Systematically looked for ways to reduce plastic usage.
But that’s just a start. Next month I’m going to slop soup on a painting and REALLY make a difference.
I ride my bike 24 miles a day every weekday of the year , use hugle culture and no dig in my garden, recycle that's just the start do one, they're virtue signalling twats.
- Great, you're reducing your personal impact. That's a great start. I'm sure our politicians will think of your hugle culture and recycling when they sign the next gas drilling licenses. We can't 'individual action' our way out of this one.
  And btw, I'm sure the activists do their recycling too.

These pro-acrylic protests are getting out of hand!

Have my upvote, you monster.
Pro-acrylic or anti-ear mutilation?
- Well, they are oil paintings sooo...

🌍 > 🖼️

That sort of comment could be used to justify an unbelievable amount of vandalism and terror and is just not productive
- We should value the Earth more than art. If vandalism of paintings bothers people more than the destruction of the Earth then they should reexamine their priorities. No to mention, the vandalism of the art is imagined, the painting is undamaged, but the damage to the planet is real. On top of that, if we do nothing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions then the damage to the planet will continue to worsen.
- There is literally no vandalism nor terrorism here apart from the planet being destroyed.

Just Stop Oil activists throw soup at ~~Van Gogh’s Sunflowers~~ plastic sheet after fellow protesters jailed

I dunno why these newspapers constantly print these phony headlines... Oh wait. It's the clickbait and propaganda obviously.

- Only in this case it would be shooting deliberately at the vest of a person covered from head to toe in said vest with a caliber that they'd know couldn't penetrate it. There was no chance for it to penetrate or go around the protective layer, nor was it intended to be so, so that's not quite accurate.
Is this a joke? They literally threw soup at the painting, but the painting was protected. And you're calling this click bait and propaganda? I've seen some pretty ridiculous whining about click bait, but this might now take the top spot.
- So imagine in retort of a joke your friend makes you lightly backslap them in the chest or something, these headlines would report it as you punching your friend. Is that accurate? It doesn't really paint an accurate picture does it?

I don't remember where, but I've read they're funded by oil companies. I think it's actually surprisingly effective, because generating outrage is the point of demonstrations like this. Also, iirc, all their targets so far have been behind protective barriers, so no real damage either. Should they be inconveniencing oil execs? Sure! (I'd honestly prefer if they [comment cannot legally be completed], but that's probably asking too much.) But their current strategy gets more attention, and more attention gets better awareness. No one cares about a rich asshole. Everyone cares about world-famous art.
Because then it's a violent protest and you won't hear the end of it from the conservatives. It's been p much proven that any action is better than no action, and them sitting outside a single persons home would be inefficient and also potentially harassment.
Also it doesn't help that reporting around this stuff conveniently misses the parts where all of their actions are easily reversible and non damaging. If anything it shows how corrupt the media empire is

Hot take: I swear a lot of these kinds of "protests" are funded by the oil companies themsleves to make climate activists look like crazy crackpots easy for the media and average Joe to dismiss. Like with the Stonehenge paint bullshit. Really?

I agree. I think these people are serving as "useful idiots". They don't know they're being manipulated by oil interests. Ther think they are fighting the good fight. They are undoubtedly benefiting those they claim to be against.
- Oil companies are manipulating these people into being against climate change?
You might be right.
Just Stop Oil states it is partially funded by the Climate Emergency Fund (CEF), founded by Aileen Getty, granddaughter of oil tycoon John Paul Getty.
Source: https://whynow.co.uk/read/who-is-funding-just-stop-oil-the-billionaires-backing-the-art-vandals
- Aileen Getty is a philanthropist who inherited money and has nothing to do with the oil company. Her father and the rest of her family sold their stake when she was young. This is just a convenient conspiracy for oil companies to spread because people just fucking slurp it up without the minimum due diligence.
It wouldn't be the strangest thing that has happened. It's actually quite logical.

Good for them.

They’re getting media attention for their message. That isn’t easy to do.

I'm sorry, but these protests are going to far! That was a perfectly fine soup!

I know Lemmy has mixed feelings here, but I personally applaud these activists for risking prison time to draw attention to a major existential threat.

I find it quite entertaining to see all the art aficionados coming out so shook by them getting a little bit of soup onto some plexiglass and a picture frame that they probably couldn't even describe before these incidents. Close your eyes, Is it walnut or cherry? Painted or oil finished? Ornate or simple? 5 or 7 inches wide? Symmetrical or asymmetrical along a horizontal axis?

These protests, which thus far have involved basically zero actual damage of cultural significance have driven significantly more attention (good and bad) to their cause than anything else that has been done. Their protests are non-violent and generally nondestructive.

That said, the real crime here is the judge sentencing 2 years in prison for getting some soup on the frame of a painting - I don't support violent protests, but I'm pretty sure you could just go around and slap oil CEOs in the face for a fraction of the sentence.

Slapping oil CEOs in the face would be much more relevant, and not be targeting irreplaceable cultural artifacts.
- irreplaceable cultural artifacts
  I mean it won't be exactly the same, but I'm pretty sure they can buy more of that plexiglass that got soup'd. Calling plexiglass a cultural artifact feels like a bit of a stretch, but I do think it's replaceable.
- Slapping a CEO in the face is assault. That's a serious offense in most countries, and it would be extremely easy to get sent to jail for years.
  Throwing soup at a painting that's behind Plexiglas is, at most, disturbing the peace and vandalizing a museum's floor.
- You're welcome to work on that plan.

My tin hat tingles with these guys they're either too upper middle-class to actually understand the real world or they're making sure climate activists are a running joke.

I see your point, I do. But I also see theirs. There will be no one around in the future to enjoy or make art if we continue fucking up the world with fossil fuels the way we are.
Maybe it'd be better to walk around posting little signs on the paintings descriptions with a catch phrase like "like art? Stop fossil fuels" then a little blurb about how there'll be no art in the future if there is no future.
That's probably how I'd handle it, maybe even try to work with the museum so the signs wouldnt get taken down. But, that doesn't get media attention. It'd never end up in the news. Maybe after contacting 50 museums it'd get a small mention, but ultimately no one would care.
Our current news cycles don't encourage people to act civilly when trying to be heard. So that's why this sort of extreme behavior keeps happening. It's a vicious feedback loop and just like climate change we don't seem to be making any moves to stop it.
No bad publicity.
- Here are a few reasons why thats not true
  People talking about these guys being dumbasses does not equate to people taking climate change seriously.
  There is limited bandwidth for publicity, these morons are taking publicity away from people actively doing the research, enacting changes, building things the help mitigate climate change.
  They give the opportunity for climate change deniers to lump all climate change activists together with these idiots, allowing them to replace the message of "Act against climate change" to look at all these dumbass climate change activists.

I 100% agree with their message, I 20% agree with their tactics.

This is so poorly motivated it makes me wonder if it were in fact staged by the fossil fuel industry to make climate activists look bad.

“I chose to peacefully disrupt a business-as-usual system that is unjust, dishonest and murderous.”

Ah, yes, the murderous system of [checks notes] art made generations before you were born.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Stop_Oil
In April 2022, it was reported that Just Stop Oil's primary source of funding was donations from the US-based Climate Emergency Fund.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Getty
Aileen Getty is an American heiress and activist. She is a member of the Getty family, the granddaughter of J. Paul Getty. She co-founded the Climate Emergency Fund in 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Paul_Getty
Jean Paul Getty Sr. (/ˈɡɛti/; December 15, 1892 – June 6, 1976) was an American-born British petroleum industrialist who founded the Getty Oil Company in 1942 and was the patriarch of the Getty family.[1] A native of Minneapolis, he was the son of pioneer oilman George Getty. In 1957, Fortune magazine named him the wealthiest living American,[2] while the 1966 Guinness Book of Records declared him the world's wealthiest private citizen, worth an estimated $1.2 billion (approximately $8.6 billion in 2023).[3] At the time of his death, he was worth more than $6 billion (approximately $25 billion in 2023).[4] A book published in 1996 ranked him as the 67th wealthiest American who ever lived (based on his wealth as a percentage of the concurrent gross national product).[5]
So she assuages her guilt for having a huge oil inheritance by donating some of it to encourage other people overseas to go to jail protesting other people doing what her grandfather made his money doing. Great.
- What do you expect her to do instead?
- I dunno. if I was born into a family rich on something like oil, I hope I'd spend a bunch to end our dependence on it. chiefly because it's better than not, and I'd also have the fortune to do so, and the irony of using oil money to get us post-oil like we're Norway would be a bit of added cheek.
  What should she do in her position: lay about like Bruce Wayne or try to do good like batman?
- Honestly, got no problem with that. We aren't responsible for the actions of our ancestors. The issue is whether what she's funding is effective.
Was it actually damaged? Seems like the only damage done was to the frame.
- Damage was only done to the frame on this occasion, yes. Their claim of disrupting an unjust etc etc etc system though hinges on them disrupting the system of... viewing priceless art in a public gallery.

Have we considered that these protests are astroturfing by big professional art-restoration backers?

We've considered they're astroturfing for big oil, yes.
- Ahhh… big oil paint dollars.

I bet fossil fuel companies love this

I keep thinking that these guys have to be right wing plants. Can these people really be this stupid? Doing this shit and blocking roads only makes people your enemy. Go throw paint on billionaire's houses or at your nearest court house you idiots

Point of order, they didn't block the road. They were up on the sign poles. The police stopped traffic.

Like, holy fucking shit, I'm not against radical protests or direct action. Take a fucking sledgehammer to someone's sports' car for all I give a fuck. Do it to multiple people. I mean, as long as it's someone relevant, not just some rando. But this? Playing fucking games with human heritage? This kind of infantile shit is why museums and public galleries have to invest heavily in security measures anymore. The Mona Lisa has been damaged multiple times by people doing this kind of bullshit. And, like this, no one fucking remembers it in a few years' time.

It's insane that the Solarpunk Climate community is more nuanced on this event that many of the defenders in here. Not because the Solarpunk instance is bad, but because climate change et co is kind of Their Thing.

When this Just Stop Oil group first started getting in the news, a bunch of people were pointing out that they are funded by an oil baroness, which makes their actions seem like they are deliberately stupid and targeting irrelevant targets because they're meant to make environmentalists look stupid and not actually trying to do anything about big oil.
- I might consider more likely that the heiress is just so out of touch with ordinary people that she thinks these kinds of high-profile incidents of petty vandalism are what changes the world, instead of education, politics, green energy investment, decentralization of financial power, etc etc etc.
  Not dissimilarly, but from a different root cause (ie probably not obscene wealth), would be those on Lemmy who are so out of touch with ordinary people that they think this is some sort of winning or even contributing move to changing public opinion positively.
Just do anything as long as you don't have to be inconvenienced. Got it.
- Literally the only demand I made is "Don't attempt to damage priceless works of art or human heritage", but I guess that's too much to ask for the attention-seeking brigade.
- You should go to the Olympics with the impressive mental gymnastics it required to have this be your takeaway.

(Everyone seems to be taking the opposite message from my original post, so I guess I’ll just replace it.)

Here is a pretty good video about the original incident when it happened, responding to some of the criticism of the soup-throwers by comparing their demonstration to the self-immolation of Wynn Bruce, in terms of media attention, cost, and damage:

https://youtu.be/5COJyheLHSE

(I had not heard of Wynn Bruce before the video, so I assumed nobody else had either. Wrong assumption on Lemmy, I guess.)

I do remember Wynn Bruce and how his act solved climate change forever.
You mean when a man with a brain injury and a history of suicide attempts committed suicide, but had his suicide lionized as a noble act by the terminally online? Funny enough, yes, I do remember Wynn Bruce.

Van Gogh tried to shoot himself in the heart and missed.

I'm confused who this is for. Even many who agree with them don't appreciate vandalism of art and art galleries.

Will art matter when we’re all dead from climate change tho?? I guess everyone has their priorities
- Will art matter when we’re all dead from climate change tho?? I guess everyone has their priorities
  Jesus Christ.
  Yes. You got it. Climate crisis averted because some twits threw soup on a priceless painting and damaged the frame. Now we are all aware, whereas we weren't before.
- So people can go randomly punch the homeless? It won't matter in the end if we are all dead due to climate change.
- Will art matter when we’re all dead from climate change tho?? I guess everyone has their priorities
  I believe these antics hurt the advocacy for taking climate change seriously. Their vandalism protests confirm in the minds of the opposition that "climate change is fake because the 'soup throwers' are the ones driving it.".
  Its similar to how vegans are dismissed not for their choices in diet but because of how they advocate others to do the same. People that want to go vegan have to do so in spite of the perception the most vocal vegans have created. Instead of accelerating adoption it creates a new barrier. Note, I'm not a vegan. See, I have to say that so I'm taken seriously in this response. That is how bad public perception of veganism is because of its most vocal advocates.
- Everyone dying from climate change is not what climate scientists are predicting. Lying about reality will not help the cause.
It's to get cameras thrust in their face so they ask when oil executives will face consequences.
"Is destroying art worse than destroying the whole planet???"
It's an idiotic form of protest, it accomplishes nothing but turning the public against you, and forever associating your cause with petty vandalism.
- Except when they did protests targeted at oil infrastructure, that was still apparently wrong and got far less coverage than much safer stunts like these.
- "Is destroying art worse than destroying the whole planet???"
  It’s a fair question.
  Everyone cares so much about protecting this painting. Why don’t they care as much about protecting the planet? (And the painting isn’t even in any real danger. It’s behind glass.)
  The vandalism is practically thought-provoking performance art in itself. It’s probably one of the best pieces in the gallery.
- ...and yet, here we are talking about climate change. If they'd instead organized a protest of 10,000 people marching for hours it wouldn't have been international news and we wouldn't be talking about climate change.
- And also everything they do is wrong because all protests are secretly worse than the things being protested.
  Let the planet die like all the reasonable people.
- They should throw (cold) soup on the children of oil company executives.
Getting a couple of ounces of soup on a picture frame is hardly the "vandalism of art" people are making it out to be.

The article doesn't make clear if the painting was damaged this time or not.

I assume not, but that's the very first thing these kind of articles should be stating up front.

Just Stop Oil has to be the most destructive and idiotic activist group I've ever heard of (besides Greenpeace and their anti-nuclear agenda). They make activism as a whole look bad with their pointless stunts.

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.

Doesnt help they're total assholes either; a few years ago they blocked a motorway in England in protest. Fair enough. But there was a family who's baby had to be rushed to the nearest hospital, and they weren't allowed to pass! Seriously, fuck them.

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.
- An incredibly stupid sentiment.
Evidence suggests that disruptive protests actually help, rather than hinder organisations like JSO:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/07/disruptive-protest-helps-not-hinders-activists-cause-experts-say
https://theconversation.com/climate-change-radical-activists-benefit-social-movements-history-shows-why-181977
https://theconversation.com/radical-environmentalists-are-fighting-climate-change-so-why-are-they-persecuted-107211
It's all about raising awareness and facilitating discussions.
Meanwhile petrol companies are doing everything they can to smother protests: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/26/anti-protest-laws-fossil-fuel-lobby
Consider who gains the most from perpetuating the idea that JSO are the bad guys...
- only 30% thought disruptive tactics were effective for issues with high awareness but low support
- You'd have to live under a rock to not be aware of climate change. If you do live under a rock, you wouldn't hear about some dumbasses throwing soup in an art gallery.
  If you know about climate change, but don't care about climate change, a stupid act like this is not going to change their mind. Nothing will.
I don't agree with this but I think I can see the point.
I think it shows how upset people get when they think something like the painting is being destroyed, but do not connect that to the planet being destroyed by the people they protest.
Wreck a van Gogh goto jail, wreck the planet profit.
- There is no connection. That's why it's stupid.
Big oil thanks you for spreading their propaganda for free.
pointless stunts.
Well, we're talking about it. I also understand (which doesn't mean I support) their message without even looking it up. I'm glad someone else clarified it (cf “There is no art on a dead planet.”) proving that it's really not that hard.
Who cares about the most beautiful piece of art ever if there is nobody left to enjoy it because we are literally burning up the only livable ecosystem we know?
- We're talking about their pointless stunt, not about climate change. They're adding absolutely nothing.
- And destroying that art so that if we do end up fixing it and living we still can't have it isn't a good look, imo.
Heard an interview a while ago with a founder of Just Stop Oil who clearly said he doesn't care whether they even stop climate change (around 40:00-43:00).
What does Vincent van Gogh have to do with the current state of the petrol industry?
It's famous, so attacking it gets attention.
Idiotic is when people still think that the actual art was harmed at all. There have been like dozens of these protests and people still spout this nonsense.

guarantee half the clothes theyre wearing are made at least partially of oilbased material. edit: and 10 people dont know what polyester is or how common an additive it is in textiles

Relevant
so are half of our cells, your point?
- "Your honor the suspect had blood on his hands when we found him. Well you're 10% blood so what's your point?"

These people are utter cunts.

All this does is annoy people and potentially damage the actual art. If they threw soup at oil execs or something, at least it’d be somewhat related to their message. But attacking paintings does nothing.

If I saw that in a museum, I’d punch them in the mouth.

We know perfectly well that the art is behind glass and will not be damaged because they did it before. So it's complete nonsense to say that it will potentially destroy the art.
Didn't they throw it at a protective barrier, though? So zero potential of damaging the art?
Throwing soup at an oil exec is assault on a human being and would be worse, ethically, because human beings have sensory apparatuses and, presumably at least some level of emotion.
If you punched someone in the mouth because they threw soup at a protective plastic barrier in a museum, then it is you who would be the "utter cunt".
You are the utter cunt here yourself, with your short-sighted opinion. Can't you see the parallel in polluting something of value? Like is being done to our planet? And those people's grandchildren will be even more annoyed when they have hardly any food left, with weather catastrophies ruining their existence. OK, that was a bit harsh, but you catch my drift.

Just like the Civil Rights Protestors!!

/s

Actually, it's almost exactly like the Civil Rights protesters. MLK even outright said that they didn't do anything more than marches and sit-ins because those were already illegal and doing anything more could get them killed or prison sentences.
That said, I think this was a stupid way to risk jail time.
- Well I just started peeing on people while yelling “Stop Big Oil!” and although I’m embarrassed to admit it, that does make me exactly like Dr. King. Oh, sure it may get me some jail time but that’s what fighting for freedom takes. Er, fighting big oil. Freedom from big oil.
  And hey if my POV videos get me a few million clicks on the site in the meantime, I can’t blame the people. They’re hungry for justice!

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

Bet this was done by big oil. No one is that fucking stupid.

exxon is like "please throw up more soup" while holding a cigar and laughing like marvel villain
- Yeah. Because it’s so fucking stupid it makes the entire anti-big oil movement look like a bunch of childish little brats.
  I thought this.
  And I’ll bet you they most people over the age of 25 thinks this. It’s damaging to the movement.

This is invalid civil disobedience. The point of civil disobedience is to disobey unjust laws (see: Rosa Parks disobeying bus segregation). So unless they think laws against throwing soup at paintings are unjust, their point is lost.

- I do think blockading oil terminals would be much more sympathetic. But it's hard to blockade enough to have a serious effect on oil usage, hence the lack of attention. A better example is the protests against the Keystone XL Pipeline, which included blocking construction. Public opinion eventually turned against the pipeline.
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.”
- MLK was brilliant at activism, but not all his actions were created equal. Notably it seems despite his protests, the stall-in never happened. Perhaps everyone realized it was a terrible idea. Then the Civil Rights Act passed without it. How do we know there's not an alternate history where it did happen, pissed off a bunch of voters, and caused the Civil Rights Act to become too politically toxic to pass?
Agreed.