3 ms·

> After each attack, the museum must close for a while This was the National Gallery in London, which I believe doesn't charge for admission because it's a pub

by abeppu 2y ago

> After each attack, the museum must close for a while This was the National Gallery in London, which I believe doesn't charge for admission because it's a public institution. But ... did the National Gallery actually close after these incidents, when just one painting was attacked and not actually damaged? That would seem to be an overreaction. In any case, I think a lost revenue justification for the damages along these lines seems kinda silly. Rather the judge seems to have believed that the damage is to society overall: > our culpability is at level A. You did reconnaissance and planning and talked to a journalist. Your harm is at category 1, which means extreme harm to society. > There is nothing peaceful or nonviolent about throwing soup. Throwing soup in someone’s face is violent. I think the problem with a legal system that treats throwing soup as violence and not damaging a painting as causing damage is that this flattening perspective only incentivizes activists to go big or go home. If you're going to be sentenced as if you did damage even when you did not ... then you may as well try to destroy the painting next time. If you're going to be treated by the legal system as if you committed a violent crime when you threw soup at an enclosed painting ... then maybe next time you should actually commit real violence. Note, it sounds like being convicted of battery in the UK only gets you up to a maximum of 6 months. So you could physically accost people and get a much shorter sentence than these soup-throwers. https://criminalinjurieshelpline.co.uk/blog/punishment-sentences-assault-gbh/ https://criminalinjurieshelpline.co.uk/blog/punishment-sente...

ruined 2y ago
i can say that observationally, this just-do-the-crime reasoning is real. over the past couple decades, many american activists have realized that demonstrating certain political positions is dangerous, even if the demonstration itself and each individual participant is lawful. so now there's a broad activist culture that encourages independent militant action against productive capital, general infrastructure, administrative facilities, retail outlets, and personal homes!
- abeppu 2y ago
  Though, I guess to ground this a little: I can say that observationally, this just-do-the-emissions reasoning is real. Over the past several decades, many industrialized individuals and groups have realized that pushing certain harmful chemicals into the environment is lawful almost regardless of the amount. So now there's a broad emitter culture that encourages independent destructive action against productive ecosystems and planetary systems, threatening the long term viability of public infrastructure, administrative facilities, retail outlets, and personal homes! The scale of destruction from climate activists is many orders of magnitude less than the destruction of what they're railing against. These soup-throwers are being charged, but Exxon/BP/Chevron are never charged with manslaughter or even reckless endangerment when a heatwave or hurricane which would not have happened but for climate change claims its many victims.
  - pvaldes 2y ago
    > The scale of destruction from climate activists is many orders of magnitude less than the destruction of what they're railing against. two wrongs don't make a right. "Bob shoot at me, therefore I can rape Lisa?". Sorry, but I'm not buying that BS.
    - abeppu 2y ago
      No one is claiming two wrongs don't make a right. I'm certainly not saying these activists should have no punishment (and they know that they're risking prosecution when they undertake their actions). But we should also be keenly aware that the emitters that causing a giant and growing crisis which has already killed a bunch of people and will kill many more in the future are not facing any punishment, and this should be at least as significant a story as 2 people getting 2 years for throwing soup.
      - pvaldes 2y ago
        Museums are NOT the emitters. As I said before this is just a silly excuse to attack valuable objects from western culture.
    - 2y ago
pvaldes 2y ago
> did the National Gallery actually close after these incidents, when just one painting was attacked Don't know. Wasn't there. The museums work like a computer memory pile. There is an endless stream of people walking in. To keep the system running the same amount must walk out. To keep the system efficient, the flux must have a direction and only one. The tourists must walk the pile until finding the other extreme and walk out. The same door shouldn't be used to enter and exit. If a museum is famous for a particular painting, it is assured that the stream of visitors will be directed towards that room, so nobody miss it. It will be placed most probably on a noble room with a door for entering and another in the opposite side to continue the visit. If this area is blocked, suddenly the incoming flux of people can't go out. The museum needs to find an alternative route ASAP to release that flux pressure before the people start being crushed. Most modern places will have planned that possibility, but architectures don't allow a secondary route everywhere. What I mean is that, as long as the visit is arranged in the traditional way, to close a big museum just by the attack to a single painting is not impossible at all.
pvaldes 2y ago
> maybe next time you should actually commit real violence. you could physically accost people This just reinforces the idea that the 2 years are fully justified. Better stop it now. > being convicted of battery in the UK only gets you up to a maximum of 6 months If you keep committing batteries each weekend, I bet that the next time the situation will change. All civilized societies agreed that recidivists should receive harsher sentences than one-time offenders. Here we have a criminal group --organized-- to deploy a chain of senseless attacks on a campaign of harassment of --innocent-- museums targeting artifacts of huge cultural value for western culture. Without showing any sign to stop or symptoms of regret. Legally there is no point into treating each case as an isolated act because it isn't. They are steps on a bigger crime scene.

by abeppu 2y ago

ruined 2y ago

i can say that observationally, this just-do-the-crime reasoning is real. over the past couple decades, many american activists have realized that demonstrating certain political positions is dangerous, even if the demonstration itself and each individual participant is lawful. so now there's a broad activist culture that encourages independent militant action against productive capital, general infrastructure, administrative facilities, retail outlets, and personal homes!

abeppu 2y ago
Though, I guess to ground this a little: I can say that observationally, this just-do-the-emissions reasoning is real. Over the past several decades, many industrialized individuals and groups have realized that pushing certain harmful chemicals into the environment is lawful almost regardless of the amount. So now there's a broad emitter culture that encourages independent destructive action against productive ecosystems and planetary systems, threatening the long term viability of public infrastructure, administrative facilities, retail outlets, and personal homes! The scale of destruction from climate activists is many orders of magnitude less than the destruction of what they're railing against. These soup-throwers are being charged, but Exxon/BP/Chevron are never charged with manslaughter or even reckless endangerment when a heatwave or hurricane which would not have happened but for climate change claims its many victims.
- pvaldes 2y ago
  > The scale of destruction from climate activists is many orders of magnitude less than the destruction of what they're railing against. two wrongs don't make a right. "Bob shoot at me, therefore I can rape Lisa?". Sorry, but I'm not buying that BS.
  - abeppu 2y ago
    No one is claiming two wrongs don't make a right. I'm certainly not saying these activists should have no punishment (and they know that they're risking prosecution when they undertake their actions). But we should also be keenly aware that the emitters that causing a giant and growing crisis which has already killed a bunch of people and will kill many more in the future are not facing any punishment, and this should be at least as significant a story as 2 people getting 2 years for throwing soup.
    - pvaldes 2y ago
      Museums are NOT the emitters. As I said before this is just a silly excuse to attack valuable objects from western culture.
  - 2y ago

pvaldes 2y ago

> did the National Gallery actually close after these incidents, when just one painting was attacked Don't know. Wasn't there. The museums work like a computer memory pile. There is an endless stream of people walking in. To keep the system running the same amount must walk out. To keep the system efficient, the flux must have a direction and only one. The tourists must walk the pile until finding the other extreme and walk out. The same door shouldn't be used to enter and exit. If a museum is famous for a particular painting, it is assured that the stream of visitors will be directed towards that room, so nobody miss it. It will be placed most probably on a noble room with a door for entering and another in the opposite side to continue the visit. If this area is blocked, suddenly the incoming flux of people can't go out. The museum needs to find an alternative route ASAP to release that flux pressure before the people start being crushed. Most modern places will have planned that possibility, but architectures don't allow a secondary route everywhere. What I mean is that, as long as the visit is arranged in the traditional way, to close a big museum just by the attack to a single painting is not impossible at all.

pvaldes 2y ago

> maybe next time you should actually commit real violence. you could physically accost people This just reinforces the idea that the 2 years are fully justified. Better stop it now. > being convicted of battery in the UK only gets you up to a maximum of 6 months If you keep committing batteries each weekend, I bet that the next time the situation will change. All civilized societies agreed that recidivists should receive harsher sentences than one-time offenders. Here we have a criminal group --organized-- to deploy a chain of senseless attacks on a campaign of harassment of --innocent-- museums targeting artifacts of huge cultural value for western culture. Without showing any sign to stop or symptoms of regret. Legally there is no point into treating each case as an isolated act because it isn't. They are steps on a bigger crime scene.