Does throwing soup at paintings stop the oil industry? Has it made a single dent in their massive profits?

I’m glad you asked because it’s good to be a learned adult! The UK government has stopped the licensing of new oil, gas, and coal projects since Just Stop Oil started their campaign of civil disobedience. New levies have also been placed on oil and gas company profits, that are increasing as of November.

Additionally, membership in Just Stop Oil continues to grow. So, it looks like, yes, throwing soup on paintings (as well as other forms of nonviolent resistance) DOES appear to put a dent in the profits of oil companies.

Think of how much faster it would’ve been to ask that right off the bat instead of being so insipid :)

Did they or did they not offset the oil industry: yes or no?

See, I can do the same thing you did. It required me to argue in bad faith.

I don’t care if we have any monuments if we also have an oil industry that kills the planet. I don’t want an oil industry. That is the answer! It has nothing to do with monuments, but monuments don’t matter if we have an oil industry.

Not that it matters, because no art was harmed here, as you could plainly read in the article.

Frankly, most people don’t want climate change, and most people would get used to having no oil industry really fast. I mean, we got used to Covid.

I’m not evading the question, you just don’t like my answer and want one to that you can feel superior about, so you are attempting to lead me to a frankly ridiculous question based on what I can only assume is purposeful malintent.

There is no art on a dead planet. There are no monuments without people. People give those things meaning. If we all die for the oil industry, then what good was the plexiglass covered in soup protecting that painting?

It’s great that the carbon output of those art installations is so low. Did it offset the oil industry? If no, then who cares?

Just. Stop. Oil.

You’ll have to excuse me, your gotcha question was of low quality, so I assumed you set me up a slam dunk.

My mistake, I expected too much.

Is your question seriously: Would I rather monuments be destroyed and people be alive, or that people be dead and monuments be preserved? Because obviously people are more important. But, if we stop climate change, we are likely to be able to enjoy both people being alive and monuments being preserved.

No, I would prefer we just stop oil.

If we’re all dead, the memorials are for all of us anyway.

There is no art on a dead planet.

That wasn’t your argument, but okay. If your argument is that we should dismantle capitalism, then voting for a third party is not gonna do that, unless you want some type of authoritarian regime to win that is eventually overthrown and replaced, which isn’t a solid plan either.

No fair, he hogs the adrenochrome!

“Whelp, the world’s gonna end some day, might as well end it sooner.”

One could argue that fascism is fascism and that the privileges afforded to the wealthy is a flaw or possibly a feature of capitalism.

Just say that you want Trump.

That’s weird, that would be the same thing Russian propaganda tells me to do.

First-past-the-post realistically cannot support more than a two-party system, and I will always vote for the candidate to the left, who just happens to be Joe Biden. Not voting and third parties get us Trump.

Are you suggesting Trump is a valid choice?

I love Lejolas and Jimli’s gokes.

They didn’t, otherwise there’d be one less, they’d be wider, flatter, and the tray picture wouldn’t be from an amazon listing.

If you expect us to take responsibility for our actions, then we’d have to have real solutions, and it’s just easier to complain about things, plus we’d have to arrest a looooooot of war criminals.

Definitionally, you argued.

So, are you suggesting that people aren’t allowed to complain about things, are you suggesting that complaining about things cannot be done in tandom with works that better the lives of trans, or are you suggesting that people that actually want trans people to have better lives don’t get to complain about things? Because every one of those implications are dumb as shit, especially if you have any historical knowledge of civil rights movements.

No, instead you’ve taken a stance historically used to oppress civil rights movements, using a false dilemma to essentially proport that one cannot talk about the issue because that is wasting time not doing some unknown thing about it.

And by virtue of your own post, why are you arguing with people about people arguing instead of helping trans people get the rights they deserve?

Authoritarianism and enforced heirarchical structures (as well as support for such regimes) are very much a right-wing philosophy. They also espouse the same “both sides” philosophy that conservatives push (which is a justification for maintaining the status quo, and another right-wing position.)

Because people other than the two arguing read that and learn things. If someone states factually wrong or hurtful information about, say, trans people, I would rather they be corrected than someone think that trans people are anything other than human beings being human beings from that prior comment.