Protesters don’t necessarily get arrested for protesting, usually its for creating a disturbance, like blocking roads and bridges, and doing weird shit like throwing tomato soup on paintings and gluing yourself to a museum wall. Protesting in this way is meant to be provocative, they know they’ll get arrested, but it gets on the news and gets people talking.
Personally I’m not sure why they targeted painting in an art museum specifically, they were protesting the extraction of oil. Maybe because they were oil paintings?
You’re wrong about people knowing that they’re going to be arrested for many protest activities. The point of marching is that it doesn’t damage anything and it doesn’t hurt any people. That’s why people go out and they walk in public places and on roads and on bridges, because it doesn’t harm anyone so there’s no reason to arrest anyone, but it does make their presence felt so people can’t pretend the problem doesn’t exist.
If your solution is that anytime a protester does anything disruptive, they should be arrested, that will encourage all protesters to immediately move towards property damage. If they’re going to get locked up anyway, why not break the windows of the companies that they think are doing such a bad job? Why not burn a few police cars? Then they’ll be making the presence felt and taking funding away from people who don’t deserve it.
It’s because it’s one of the most effective ways to get a news story about your protest without actually hurting anyone. I say all the more power to them. It’s not like we don’t have hi res scans of all these works of art. At this point the people that will have to pay for it are the rich people who own the artwork.
They think all of this is not only connected, but so connected as to be the same thing:
oil industry
capitalism
western civilization
great european art
Basically there’s a particular type of philosophical disorder where a person has no “weighting dropoff” in the connections between their things. Every relationship has 100% weight, so if A, B, C, and D are connected in some way then A is D and you can fight A by fighting D.
I don’t know if there’s a term for this, but it’s basically like the zero-signal-degradation manner of reasoning about causality.
If protesters get arrested for protesting, then what will we do if the government goes against the people?
Punishing protesting is a form of domination, something that only has its place in dictatorships.
I do get being punished for destroying someone else’s property, but not for protesting.
Protesters don’t necessarily get arrested for protesting, usually its for creating a disturbance, like blocking roads and bridges, and doing weird shit like throwing tomato soup on paintings and gluing yourself to a museum wall. Protesting in this way is meant to be provocative, they know they’ll get arrested, but it gets on the news and gets people talking.
Personally I’m not sure why they targeted painting in an art museum specifically, they were protesting the extraction of oil. Maybe because they were oil paintings?
You’re wrong about people knowing that they’re going to be arrested for many protest activities. The point of marching is that it doesn’t damage anything and it doesn’t hurt any people. That’s why people go out and they walk in public places and on roads and on bridges, because it doesn’t harm anyone so there’s no reason to arrest anyone, but it does make their presence felt so people can’t pretend the problem doesn’t exist.
If your solution is that anytime a protester does anything disruptive, they should be arrested, that will encourage all protesters to immediately move towards property damage. If they’re going to get locked up anyway, why not break the windows of the companies that they think are doing such a bad job? Why not burn a few police cars? Then they’ll be making the presence felt and taking funding away from people who don’t deserve it.
It’s because it’s one of the most effective ways to get a news story about your protest without actually hurting anyone. I say all the more power to them. It’s not like we don’t have hi res scans of all these works of art. At this point the people that will have to pay for it are the rich people who own the artwork.
They view the world at extremely low resolution.
They think all of this is not only connected, but so connected as to be the same thing:
Basically there’s a particular type of philosophical disorder where a person has no “weighting dropoff” in the connections between their things. Every relationship has 100% weight, so if A, B, C, and D are connected in some way then A is D and you can fight A by fighting D.
I don’t know if there’s a term for this, but it’s basically like the zero-signal-degradation manner of reasoning about causality.
I can see modern art and stuff being connected to capitalism, but how do you see Stonehenge factor in?