• Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    155
    ·
    3 months ago

    destroying paintings and monoliths

    But… they didn’t do either of those things. They threw soup at glass, and for the Stonehenge thing they used washable powder paint. They were publicity stunts with no damage done.

    • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      122
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah but it’s a lot harder to paint climate activists as the bad guys when you say things like “they souped our glass and powdered our rocks”, so better to just lie, right?

    • tristan@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      3 months ago

      Going after a painting that’s behind glass is VERY different to going after the stone henge that has no protective layer, and most importantly of all, has nothing to do with the target of their cause

      saying it destroyed the stone henge is a major exaggeration, saying it did no damage is also just as wrong. The English heritage society emphasised that it was only no VISIBLE damage left, however they also said it did cause damage.

      It’s just like how you can’t touch walls in caves because any change in the oils and stuff in our skins can cause long term damage even though there’s no immediate visible damage